Temp Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 Sorry if already reported... https://www.se-solicitors.co.uk/article/102jao8/clarksons-clause-opens-up-new-sources-of-revenue-for-farmers/#:~:text=The reform means that agricultural,unit from 5 to 10. Quote On 21st May 2024 major legislative changes to existing permitted development rights were made by the UK government. Widely seen as a response to the closure of Jeremy Clarkson’s barn conversion restaurant after two planning applications were rejected by West Oxfordshire District Council, these changes mean that it is now much easier to convert agricultural buildings into residential or commercial uses. The reform means that agricultural buildings which are not solely used for agricultural purposes (eg. storage) can now also be converted into residential properties without planning permission, whilst also increasing the maximum number of dwellings within a former agricultural unit from 5 to 10. A planning application is also now not required for conversion of certain agricultural buildings to anything within Use Class E (commercial, business or services) plus outdoor sport and recreation, or use for the provision of agricultural training. These new permitted changes operate in addition to the existing permitted development use class changes for agricultural buildings to hotels, general industrial use and warehousing. The changes also double the maximum floor space for conversion to such commercial uses from 500m2 to 1000m2. Unsurprisingly, there are a number of caveats to these positive changes. So if you are thinking of re-purposing redundant agricultural buildings its important to seek decent legal advice from the outset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanR Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 Not sure why it's been attributed to Clarkson, It's just this update Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 Having watched and thoroughly enjoyed watching all of Clarksons farms programmes it did bring home how difficult farming is and as Jeremy admitted he could only really do it because he has other income streams. Anyway I digress, it was obvious that the council and many locals did not like him (he can be obnoxious) but he did win his appeal in the end. He was lauded by the farming community and won an award for bringing to the general public the realism of the difficulties farmers face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 16 minutes ago, joe90 said: it did bring home how difficult farming He is like David Archer, on the Archers. If it can go wrong, David cops it. He should be bankrupt many times over. Having studied Agriculture, I don't find Clarkson to be very representative, more a soap box. Anyone know why he only farms half his thousand acres? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelvin Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 He’s not trying to be representative. I know many farmers. All of them have said that he’s done more to highlight some of the challenges farmers face than just about anyone else. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Jones Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 10 hours ago, SteamyTea said: He is like David Archer, on the Archers. If it can go wrong, David cops it. He should be bankrupt many times over. Having studied Agriculture, I don't find Clarkson to be very representative, more a soap box. Anyone know why he only farms half his thousand acres? no death duties for farmers. Best tax dodge in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 On 28/06/2024 at 07:26, Dave Jones said: no death duties for farmers. Best tax dodge in the UK. It'd cause glorious chaos in food production if that were introduced. Mind you, the likes of Dyson and others shoving their money into farmland does make things harder for actual farmers. Value of land Vs income from food production bears little relationship these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Jones Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 48 minutes ago, George said: It'd cause glorious chaos in food production if that were introduced. Mind you, the likes of Dyson and others shoving their money into farmland does make things harder for actual farmers. Value of land Vs income from food production bears little relationship these days. it's been law for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 2 hours ago, George said: It'd cause glorious chaos in food production if that were introduced Why would it. The overall hectare price would still be what the market would pay. People always thinks tax is a cost burden, if it was not collected in one place, it would come from another place. 2 hours ago, George said: Value of land Vs income from food production bears little relationship these days. I have not looked into that. Quick look. Cereal UK production value in 2021 £4.025 billion. Hectares farmed, 3.211 million. So £1,235/hectare. Land price is about £27,000/hectare. So about 22 years to pay itself off. Quicker than a mortgage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanR Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 10 minutes ago, SteamyTea said: Why would it. Because at each generational change in ownership 40% of the value of the land would go to the state. Existing farming families would have to sell large portions of their farmsteads to pay the IHT, reducing the size of farmsteads making them unsustainable leading to their sale. There's not that many buyers for commercial (+500 acres) farms. 16 minutes ago, SteamyTea said: Quick look. Cereal UK production value in 2021 £4.025 billion. Hectares farmed, 3.211 million. So £1,235/hectare. Land price is about £27,000/hectare. So about 22 years to pay itself off. Quicker than a mortgage. You are suggesting that cereal production is 100% profit. Reality is most years it's an accounting loss. It is not possible to finance the land and make a profit from it after paying finance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 (edited) 1 hour ago, SteamyTea said: Why would it. The overall hectare price would still be what the market would pay. Agricultural sector doesn't have the cash to pay 40% of the estate every 20 years or so. And the subsequent devaluation of land may make paying an inheritance tax impossible anyway. Realistically you'd probably find that land is owned by large corporations which then becomes landlords for tenant farmers. Essentially the corporations will become the Lords of the modern world. But experience around the world shows that owner occupiers make more efficient use of agricultural land. 1 hour ago, SteamyTea said: People always thinks tax is a cost burden, if it was not collected in one place, it would come from another place. I have not looked into that. Quick look. Cereal UK production value in 2021 £4.025 billion. Hectares farmed, 3.211 million. So £1,235/hectare. Land price is about £27,000/hectare. So about 22 years to pay itself off. Quicker than a mortgage. Actual profit margin is around £200/hectare, depending on many factors. So more like a century or two. Edited June 30 by George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 (edited) 2 hours ago, Dave Jones said: it's been law for years. Yes but the use of agricultural land to avoid inheritance tax seems to be a more recent trend. A cap or stronger limits that the owner is actually farming would help. Edited June 30 by George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 1 hour ago, SteamyTea said: Quicker than a mortgage. Differing efforts required and different risks. I spoke to a farmer last week who is 'growing wildflowers' this year instead of wheat. I think he meant a mixture of 'nog worth it' and grants. Lots of farms are shutting down. Brexit, fuel cost, labour. And the value of redundant barns. Some plots with planning near me are £1.1M / acre. Previously they were farmland at £10k. I'd tax the vendor that at 10%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ambrose Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Yeah seems not unreasonable to have a windfall tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanR Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 5 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said: Yeah seems not unreasonable to have a windfall tax. With CGT and CIL, which recovers £600,000 - £1,250,000 per hectare, it's pretty heavily taxed now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 32 minutes ago, IanR said: With CGT and CIL CIL isn't paid by the vendor though is it? GGT I'm confident can be lessened by accounts processes. Perhaps others here know more. Nearly all land was taken by the man with the biggest stick. There was always an inherent risk that the community might want it back, or some recompense. So the landowner with 1,000 acres releases 1 acre for £1M and pays 30%. Keeps 700k for the hols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanR Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 3 minutes ago, saveasteading said: CIL isn't paid by the vendor though is it? But as a cost of development, it lowers the price of the land. It's not paid on the profit of the development. Indirectly, the land price covers the CIL. 4 minutes ago, saveasteading said: GGT I'm confident can be lessened by accounts processes. Perhaps others here know more. There is a tapered relief for CGT. As with most Taxes there are offsets. 6 minutes ago, saveasteading said: Nearly all land was taken by the man with the biggest stick. There was always an inherent risk that the community might want it back, or some recompense. I think you are referring to "Titled" Estates. It's a small percentage of farmed land. The vast majority of farmers have purchased their land on the open market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 (edited) 25 minutes ago, IanR said: referring to "Titled" Estates. Well, then anything over say 1,000 acres? 25 minutes ago, IanR said: lowers the price of the land. It's not paid on the profit Agreed but: The value is what is left after deducting all costs and profits from the sales price. Thus it varies by location. £10k or £ 0.5M or £1M / acre depending on where your farm happens to be, and where a red line is drawn. I think a high proportion of farms are leased from a huge estate. Edited June 30 by saveasteading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanR Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 1 hour ago, saveasteading said: Well, then anything over say 1,000 acres? Not really, plenty (vast majority) of +1,000 acre farms have been purchased on the open market, not being in anyway related to feudalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now