Land Journal: July-August 2020

July/August 2020

12 In deep water A snapshot of the complex water trading system in Australia

15 From the ground up Use the science of soil to make land more productive

22 Ripe for change?

Do you have what it takes to grow grapes?

rics.org/journals

Land

6

Cultivating change An update on the Agriculture Bill

Disputes are on the rise Ensure you’re prepared to face contentious matters During these challenging times, many of our professionals are realising the need to develop their Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) knowledge to ensure they are prepared to face disputes in the new, post-COVID world.

Develop your core knowledge and awareness of the essential procedures involved in ADR in just 3 hours with the Foundation Certificate in ADR and Conflict Avoidance.

Enrol online rics.org/foundationadr

RICS Rural Conference 2020 23 July 2020 Virtual online conference Returning for 2020 in a brand new immersive virtual reality format, with the same great content, speakers, exhibitors and networking delivered in a new and exciting way.

The opening keynote from Martin Lines, Nature Friendly Farming Network will look at sustainable farming and carbon zero targets, as well as environmental farming methods.

Our expert speakers throughout the rest of the programme will discuss the impact of COVID-19 and BREXIT on the rural sector, as well as key industry topics such as bench marking success of rural estates and updates on the current market sentiments of compulsory purchase and taxation.

Book your place online today: rics.org/ruralconference

Untitled - Page: 1

2020-06-16 10:54:57 +0000

Land

Contents

The Land Journal is the journal of the RICS Environment, Geomatics, Minerals and Waste, Planning and Development and Rural Professional Groups Editor: Sian Morgan T: +44 (0)24 7686 8560 E: sianmorgan@rics.org Advisory group: Tim Andrews (Stephenson Harwood LLP), Kevin Biggs (Consultant), Michael Birnie (Ernest Cook Trust), Isaac Boateng (University of Education, Winneba, Kumasi-Campus),

15

James Kavanagh (RICS), Philip Leverton

Grounded in science

(University College of Estate Management), Fiona Mannix (RICS), Duncan Moss

Soil health is a serious issue that is both key to production and a way to sequestrate carbon

(Ordnance Survey), Tony Mulhall (RICS), Marion Payne-Bird (Consultant), Michael Rocks (David J Powell Surveys Limited), Timothy Woodward (rural chartered surveyor), Rob Yorke (rural

18

chartered surveyor)

In-flight data

Published by: The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3AD T: + 44 (0)24 7686 8555 W: rics.org ISSN 1754-9108 (online) Editorial & production manager: Toni Gill Sub-editor: Matthew Griffiths Advertising: Jonny King T: +44 (0)20 7101 2777 E: jonny@wearesunday.com

4

Land and the future A reappraisal of political, health, economic and environmental conditions is required if we are to successfully supply minerals, recycle waste and source food in urban areas

Drone tech is reaching new heights with the ability to scale up for mass data gathering safely and securely 20

No more hold-ups An expansion of the licensing scheme for great crested newts will speed up the process for developers

Design & production: We Are Sunday

5 While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of all content in the journal, RICS will have no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the content. The views expressed in the journal are not necessarily those of RICS. RICS cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of the content and the

Briefing 6

Rural reformation An update on the Agriculture Bill and its implications for the land sector

opinions expressed in the journal, or by any

IMAGE Š 3D RURAL SURVEYORS LTD

person acting or refraining to act as a result of the material included in the journal. All rights in the journal, including full copyright or publishing right, content and design, are owned by RICS, except where otherwise described. Any dispute arising out of the

9

Enterprising estates Land-based businesses are using political uncertainty to refocus their priorities towards public good and natural capital

journal is subject to the law and jurisdiction of England and Wales. Crown copyright material is reproduced under the Open Government Licence v.3.0 for public sector information: nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3/

10

Common land

22

Lots of bottle Small- or large-scale, viticulture can be a wise choice for an additional income stream if you’re aware of all the challenges

An at-a-glance guide to common rights and common land 12

Water wars Water is no longer a natural resource managed by government, but rather a commodity for speculators in Australia

rics.org/journals 3

Land

Opinion

System in crisis

‘How we supply our minerals, recycle our waste and source our food close to our major population centres all requires rethinking in the light of COVID-19’ Tony Mulhall Associate director, professional standards, RICS

Considering the implications of what we have been going through over the last few years, do we need to reappraise some very fundamental things we have taken for granted – things that underpinned the stability of our system? The political, health, economic and environmental conditions that were once the unchanging backdrop to our everyday lives. These great definers of the status quo have been disturbed and the consequences are now intruding on us personally in an unsettling way. The changes taking place seem to be signalling that things will not return to business as usual.

The Global Financial Crisis made us realise the stability we take for granted at a global level can fall apart in a catastrophic way. Up to then plenty of commentators could be relied on to argue that the climate-related disasters were sporadic, unconnected or far away from home, which provided a modicum of nervous relief 4 Journal July/August 2020

to the sceptical. Increased incidences of flooding in Britain, water shortages in Cape Town, fires in Australia, thawing ice caps at both poles and a global health pandemic have begun to jolt people out of their complacency. It is happening to us, it is happening now, it has immediate effect. We need to take the appropriate personal measures and influence our sectors and governments to act firmly in the public interest at the same time as retaining the commercial incentive to provide necessary goods and services.

In a market economy an important service offered by surveyors is to be able to accurately assess the value of property assets on which so much of the economic and social system relies for occupation. But they are not relied on for occupation only, many people spend years of their life paying off mortgages and expect to own a valuable asset at the end of this period. Property assets also make up a significant part of

investment portfolios whose income will cover future liabilities for insurance and pension payments. But what happens when major disruption takes place?

A Financial Times article reported that trading in a number of property funds was halted after ‘… property companies such as Knight Frank, CBRE and JLL said they could not accurately value real estate in the UK …’. Some of these funds are essential to providing the diversification necessary for a balanced portfolio enabling fund managers to meet their obligations to pensioners.

Even more important is agricultural production supplying some of the fundamental needs to sustain our society.

The agricultural economy is pivotal in terms of safe, secure, plentiful and affordable food production. Measures that underpin it are a fundamental starting point for ensuring the countries’ population and the resources needed to secure it are effectively stewarded.

For more than 40 years the UK farming regime has been shaped by a collective European vision, with its priorities and support systems. The new Agricultural Bill will change this. It sets out how farmers and land managers in England will in the future be rewarded with public money for ‘public goods’ – such as better air and water quality, higher animal welfare standards, improved access to the countryside or measures to reduce flooding.

This will contribute to the government’s commitment to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, while at the same time helping to boost farmers’ productivity.

None of this should be seen as separate from how we run our towns and cities – the solution to urban flooding may partly depend on how we manage water as it flows through the countryside. How we supply our minerals, recycle our waste and source our food close to our major population centres all requires rethinking in the light of COVID-19.

Tony Mulhall is associate director, professional standards, land, at RICS tmulhall@rics.org

Briefing Digital journals on their way RICS is accelerating its digital transformation to create a purpose-built online platform for Modus and journals, launching with an archive and new content later this summer. In addition to saving over 55 million pages of paper per year, this will bring benefits such as searchability, as well as greater accessibility and ease of viewing on screen. Over time more features will be added to enable a personalised approach for each member so that you can easily access the material that matters most to you. We are putting this together now.

The launch will be supported with communications to keep members informed on progress and the features that will be available to you. To have a look at a preview visit rics.org/modus-and-journals-online

Keep up to date with RICS’ response In order to ensure we continue to support the profession during this challenging time, RICS is closely monitoring developments and following official advice on the COVID-19 outbreak.

We encourage all members and member firms to visit and bookmark rics.org/coronavirus, which is updated on a regular basis and includes: • resources for candidates and professionals • guidance on key concerns and risks • news and insight • examples of resilience from built environment businesses • responses to frequently asked questions.

Any queries or concerns not addressed on the site should be directed to covid19@rics.org

LandVoc 2.0 LandVoc is a land governance thesaurus consisting of 310 concepts, which are translated into multiple languages. Once LandVoc is adopted, pieces of information are classified and tagged according to concepts within the thesaurus.

LandVoc works as a linking tool.

The latest version has 80 new concepts added, and 37 concepts consolidated or removed based on guidance from a range of experts.

A few of the latest terms include perception of tenure security, slum upgrading and usufruct.

For example, if researchers look online for ‘slums’, LandVoc knows that they may be interested in content tagged ‘favela’. It bridges language and cultural gaps to ensure that land-related information reaches those that need it. landvoc.org

Contribute to the conversation RICS has launched a new digital insight community for surveying professionals to share knowledge and insights and keep up to date with best practice. The community is free to join and open to RICS members and relevant non-member practitioners. It is an opportunity to connect with professionals around the world to improve knowledge sharing across the sector.

Since the start of the year it has run as a pilot and the conversations, which are structured into groups by sector, have covered topics such as: the impact of data and technology on current working practices; sustainability measures and how the profession can adapt; the latest RICS consultations, guidance and policy; and RICS conferences and CPD events.

In light of recent events, the community has taken on an even more important role.

COVID-19 has been the subject of many conversations as professionals seek to share knowledge about how their working practices are having to evolve during the pandemic.

These conversations also allow RICS to see what support our members need at this time.

We encourage you to join the platform – to seek support from your peers and colleagues during the pandemic, and to contribute to conversations about the sector and your role.

The community is hosted on the Yammer platform. To join please email digicommunities@rics.org Matt McDermott is programme director, international standards at RICS mtmcdermott@rics.org

Planning on hand RTPI’s National Association of Planning Enforcement has launched an updated Planning Enforcement Handbook for England.

The handbook will ensure local authorities, planners and planning enforcers have access to the latest best practice advice for dealing with a range of enforcement challenges.

Download the handbook at bit.ly/PEhandbook rics.org/journals 5

Land

Agriculture Bill

All change for agriculture Rural surveyors should keep abreast of legislative changes and develop new holistic approaches to land management, to help their clients in this rapidly changing environment Sue Steer

With the prolonged Brexit debate now concluded, the UK’s rural legislative and policy vacuum has also ended with the introduction of a flurry of government bills relating to farming and the countryside.

Since January, the government has published Agriculture and Environment Bills, the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity (2019-20)) Bill, the Clean Air (Human rights) Bill and the Green Belt Protection Bill.

The government has also launched a National Food Strategy, the first for 75 years, and most recently a consultation on the initial proposals for designing an environmental land management scheme (ELMS). The future policy direction now promises to be very different to anything we have previously experienced and arguably represents the greatest change in agricultural and rural policy since 1947. Furthermore, 6 Journal July/August 2020

the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the fragility of the UK food system and supply chains. One of the key public policy challenges of the post-pandemic period will be to better balance food security and environmental management concerns.

The Agriculture Bill, which at the time of writing has passed its third reading in the House of Commons, will come into force as the Agriculture Act two months after the bill receives royal assent. In Part 1 the bill provides the legislative framework for replacement agriculture support schemes (see Figure 1) when the UK is no longer part of the Common Agricultural Policy. Part 2 gives power to support agricultural markets and measures to improve the transparency and fairness in the supply chain.

Part 3 and Part 4 of the bill introduce various measures concerning farming and the countryside, including on

Figure 1: Farm support timescales for change 2020: Direct payments continue. Money paid in direct payments will be allocated in ‘much the same way’ as now.

2021-27: Direct payments in England will be phased out starting from 2021 when the first progressive reductions apply. Delinking may apply from 2022 at the earliest. (Direct payments cannot continue if delinking is introduced.)

2028 and beyond: No direct payments.

SOURCE: HEALTH AND HARMONY: THE FUTURE FOR FOOD, FARMING AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN A GREEN BREXIT – POLICY STATEMENT, SEPTEMBER 2018

extended to Northern Ireland. Some provisions apply to Wales, but these will be temporary as ministers in the Welsh parliament intend to introduce a Wales (Agriculture) Bill this Assembly. The Scottish government introduced legislation in November 2019 to deal with farm support matters. Other provisions relate to all four nations with some exceptions in Part 4 of the bill.

Measures in the bill include a requirement for ministers to encourage the production of food in the UK in an environmentally sustainable way; a requirement to set out multi-annual plans about financial assistance – starting in 2021 – and a report on food security at least once every five years.

agricultural tenancies, fertiliser regulation, identification and traceability of animals and the red meat levy. Part 5 introduces new standards of production – including organic products. Part 6 includes provisions to enable the UK to meet obligations under the World Trade Organisation rules. Part 7 relates to the legislative provisions in the devolved countries.

There was widespread disappointment among many farming and environmental organisations that, in the third reading on 13 May 2020, MPs rejected an amendment that would have ensured any agricultural or food product imported into the UK under new trade agreements would be produced to the equivalent UK standard. There will, no doubt, be interesting debates around this as the bill moves to the House of Lords.

The provisions on farm support mainly apply to England with some powers

Public money for public goods Part 1 of the bill provides a range of provisions to allow the secretary of state to establish a new agricultural/rural support scheme based on the principle of public money for public goods. The clauses provide enabling powers for ministers to pay farmers and land managers for these goods and phase out the current system of direct payments.

Exactly what is meant by public money for public goods? The proposal, set out in the 25-year environment plan, is to spend public money on things that have a public value and that are not sufficiently provided or supported by a market, such as: • enhancing the environment • protecting the countryside better • improved welfare of animals, plant health and greater productivity.

Chapter 1 outlines government powers to give financial assistance for these public goods. Payments may encompass, but are not limited to, environmental protection, for example cleaner air and water and thriving plants and wildlife; public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland and woodland; and managing land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage. Importantly, financial support will also be available for, or in connection with, managing land, water or livestock in such a way as to mitigate or adapt to the effects of climate change. Powers to give financial assistance to support productivity

outcomes for agriculture, horticulture and forestry activities are also included.

Other highly relevant parts of the bill are chapters 2 and 3 that outline how direct payments and other support will be phased out after the UK’s EU exit.

To start the process of devising the new support scheme, the Department for Food, Environment & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has issued a document to encourage engagement with stakeholders entitled Environmental Land Management: policy discussion. There are presently 42 ELMS tests and trials being carried out around the country to test how elements of the new scheme will work ahead of a national pilot. ELMS is due to start in late 2024.

DEFRA’s current thinking is that ELMS will be split into three distinct spheres rather than one broad scheme to tailor each tier to the needs of particular groups of land managers, landscapes and land types.

The first tier would be to incentivise environmentally sustainable farming and forestry by, for example, using cover crops, planting wildflower margins and leaving uncultivated areas as wildlife refuges. The second tier would provide support for locally targeted environmental outcomes. This tier is likely to require more collaboration between land managers to ensure that the right things are delivered in the right places in a more joined-up way than before. The final tier would deliver landscape-scale land-use change where such projects provide added environmental value over and above tiers 1 and 2, for instance large-scale peat restoration and creation of coastal habitats such as wetlands.

RICS Countryside Policy Panel response The government has recognised that access to professional advice for farmers and others is going to be crucial to the success and positive outcomes of the new support schemes and advisers will be key in providing sound professional advice and, for instance, facilitating local collaboration among those responsible for the management of land. There is an obvious opportunity for rural chartered surveyors in an advisory role, and RICS Countryside Policy Panel’s response to rics.org/journals 7

Agriculture Bill

the Agriculture Bill draws attention to the professional training and standards of RICS members and their important role in land management across the country.

The government is placing importance on ensuring that there is an increased local involvement in the development of targeting and planning for ELMS in an area. RICS’ response to government on the Agriculture Bill recommends the development of a national land-use policy linked to the emerging food strategy to ensure the right use is on the right land at the right time. The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) last year published Our Future in the Land, setting out the results of its two-year Food, Farming and Countryside Commission. It also recognised a need for a national land-use strategy. Linked to this, RICS has also called for a review of the Agricultural Land Classification system, which could be widened to include other capabilities of land such as biodiversity and carbon sequestration.

Part 4, set out in Schedule 3 of the Agriculture Bill, includes some provisions relating to agricultural tenancies as a result of the DEFRA consultation between April and July 2019, and following on from the work of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, which identified areas of tenancy legislation that present potential barriers to productivity and structural change.

The Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 have been amended as follows.

• To replace the demand for arbitration in the case of disputes over rent with a notice of determination. This will allow the parties to agree the appointment of a third party to resolve a dispute at any time before the rent review date.

• Other professional authorities, defined as the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers and Agricultural Law Association,

One of the key public policy challenges of the post-pandemic period will be to better balance food security and environmental management concerns

can also appoint arbitrators in addition to RICS. However, any changes developed through legislation will be in consultation with the sector. RICS has provided a detailed response to this change and will consult further when regulation is published on this clause and others set out in the bill.

In respect of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 changes include the following.

• Protecting tenants so they are not charged rent for landlord’s improvements while its cost is being paid off by them.

• Provision for dispute resolution; for example, a tenant entry into new ELMS requires landlord’s consent.

• The rule that prevents tenants under 65 serving a retirement notice is repealed.

• In respect of council smallholdings, the strict requirement for tenants to retire at 65 is repealed to pensionable age.

• The commercial unit test is repealed,

and the suitability test is expanded to reflect a tenant’s likely capacity to farm the holding to a high standard of efficient production and care for the environment.

The bill contains a number of delegated powers explained in a delegated powers memorandum. These powers include clauses that enable ministers to amend or repeal provisions in an Act of Parliament using secondary legislation subject to varying degrees of parliamentary scrutiny, together with a number of post-enactment regulations to be devised. The impact of these documents on land management and agriculture needs to be understood.

RICS Countryside Policy Panel called for proper scrutiny and consultation on future draft regulations to enable the views of RICS and others involved in land management in the countryside to be heard.

Sue Steer FRICS is chair of RICS Countryside Policy Panel and director of 3D Rural Surveyors Ltd sue.steer@3drural.co.uk

There is an obvious opportunity for rural chartered surveyors in an advisory role 8 Journal July/August 2020

Related competencies include: Legal/regulatory compliance Further information: Part 2 of this article will review the Environment Bill.

IMAGE © 3D RURAL SURVEYORS LTD

Land

Land

Rural diversification

Experiential tourism of the type seen at Avalon’s Wellbeing Centre, Broughton Hall, relies on quality of place, environment and customer service with exceptional attention to detail

Enterprising estates Land-based businesses are using political uncertainty to help reshape and reposition themselves, one consultancy has found

IMAGE © HEIDI MARFITT

Rob Hindle

In its annual survey of clients last summer, professional practice Rural Solutions found that around seven out of ten respondents are committed to investing in rural enterprises, despite political uncertainty.

Drawing on this data, Rural Solutions has identified what it believes are the defining characteristics of an enterprising estate.

••Thinks like a business, not like an asset owner: an enterprising estate focuses on optimising the return its asset can provide.

••Seeks bespoke solutions: the business does not follow the herd or replicate others approaches, but instead finds the enterprise that best fits its mission and offers the best combination of site and market opportunity.

••Focuses on profit more than revenue: looks at net earnings rather than volume, weighs up risk and assesses relative return on investment, not just in terms of capital but also time, energy and emotion.

••Uses evidence, rather than guesswork or anecdote: tests and cross-references views and advice, bringing in specialists.

But it does respect an entrepreneurial gut feeling, and knows that insight and a sense of the market are key to decision-making.

••Is honest about skills and capacity: will pay to employ people with skills it

lacks that are needed for a new venture to succeed. It often needs to think particularly about business-to-customer skills: customer service, marketing, brand and digital communications. Is confident but humble enough to be a good employer.

••Finds imaginative planning and design solutions: approaches the planning process not as a regulatory hurdle but as an opportunity to promote its ideas, attract support, work in partnership with interested parties and make its plans as attractive as possible. It thinks about landscape and environment, as well as investing in understanding the site and the impact of its proposals.

••Identifies and mitigates risk: this is important when going into new markets where risk may be different.

Examples of excellence Great Tew Estate in Oxfordshire has reviewed and enhanced every facet of its businesses to make optimum use of all its assets. The process started with farming, moved on to mineral extraction and finally residential lets. At each stage, the estate team added value; for example, it identified a need for grain storage, then developed

this at a scale where it could sell storage space to others; the estate now processes feed and milling wheat, feed and malting barley, oilseed rape and oats for Glencore Agriculture. Having recognised a need for investment in plant and machinery in its ironstone quarry, so as to extend its reach into more valuable markets, it acquired other sites.

The Johnstone Quarry Group now operates five quarries and supplies more than 60,000t of stone block and 300,000t of aggregates a year. Faced with a significant repair and renovation liability across the residential stock, the team targeted the section of the market willing to pay the highest rents for homes in the countryside.

Elsewhere, other estates have had success with more immersive and experiential play-based attractions; for instance, at BeWilderwood in Norfolk, which provides space for younger children to use their imagination and explore, as well as the Zip World portfolio in north Wales, which sells outdoor leisure for adults and children.

Sustainable energy resources are another option for diversification. The climate change agenda is demanding more renewable energy schemes, and there is a wider rationale that goes beyond energy production and encompasses opportunity for biodiversity net gain and natural capital enhancement. A solar farm may not look particularly biodiverse, but the ground beneath it immediately starts to improve in terms of soil health. With a lifespan of 25–35 years, solar farms offer a considerable time for improvement. Not just a powerful planning justification, this is alluring to landowners looking to adapt their agriculture and land-use management, focusing on public good and natural capital as priorities set out in the Agriculture Bill introduced last year, and in the UK government’s 25-year environment plan.

Rob Hindle is director at Rural Solutions rob.hindle@ruralsolutions.co.uk Related competencies include: Land use and diversification, Property management rics.org/journals 9

Land

Common land

Common knowledge It pays for landowners to understand their rights with regard to common land so they can make proper use of it Rory Hutchings

There are approximately 3,701km2 of common land in England and Wales that remain a significant farming, leisure, and increasingly, an environmental resource.

The law relating to it is rooted in the centuries-old manorial system of law; it can be difficult to navigate and few people deal with it on a regular basis.

Common land and the nature of common rights are an often-overlooked and misunderstood area of law. For many it is an arcane area of little relevance in a modern context, for others it represents necessary searches during the conveyancing process but no more.

The first point to make in relation to common land is that nothing is straightforward, and everything is more difficult and time-consuming than might be anticipated. Disputes that arise now may relate to the exercise of rights or the relationship between commoners or between the commoners and the lord of the manor. Their roots are often in disputes that took place many years ago but which are passed from generation to generation.

The principal piece of legislation that most people will recognise in relation to commons is the Commons Registration Act 1965. This required the registration of land subject to rights of common and common rights; registration was conclusive evidence that the rights existed. If rights were not registered under the 1965 act, those rights ceased to exist.

The most recent legislation is the Commons Act 2006, intended to 10 Journal July/August 2020

modernise and simplify the registration and management of commons. The 2006 Act, however, has only been implemented in some pilot areas in England and only partially implemented in other areas – it is debatable whether it has actually simplified the position.

The different commons rights are broadly defined as the following.

••Pasture: right to graze animals.

••Pannage: right to allow pigs to eat acorns or beech mast.

••Estovers: right to take small branches for fuel or fencing.

••Turbary: right to dig peat as fuel.

••Piscary: right to fish.

The rights benefit only to the holding from which the rights arise – for example, a commoner could take peat to burn as fuel in the farmhouse – but cannot set up shop selling peat for his neighbours to burn. The precise nature of those rights can vary from common to common – while the rights had to be registered, their exact use and extent will have arisen by custom and so even now the position can be opaque. One can ascertain from the register what rights exist but not always their specific nature.

In general terms this is seldom an issue as grazing is the most important right.

In many regions, grazing of commons has declined over the years, both because it is no longer commercially viable and due to increased pressure on commons from traffic and other leisure uses. However, in some areas commons remain an important part of the agricultural landscape.

The new Act The Commons Act 2006 replaced the 1965 Act. While some provisions of the 2006 Act have been introduced everywhere, others are in force in some areas only.

Provisions were introduced by virtue of different regulations at different times in England and Wales. Some provisions were introduced in pilot areas only – currently nine English counties. The result is that the position remains as complex and confusing as it was before.

The key elements of the 2006 Act are that it: • restricts the severance of rights • manages works on common land • makes provision for correction of the register, and • deals with the management of commons.

The provisions in the 2006 Act dealing with the management of common land and the introduction of Commons Councils, in my view, were introduced in part to correct what authorities saw as a problem.

This problem was namely the difficulty reaching agreements with commoners to allow the use of commons and the difficulty promoting agri-environment agreements and, in some cases, infrastructure projects on common land, which followed. It also allows for more intervention if commons are being badly managed or overgrazed.

Some commons have well-organised and effective Commons Associations that manage the common, but many do not.

A Commons Council has to consider public interest and that specifically includes nature conservation, landscape conservation and public access. The environmental importance of commons means that there is a wider interest in the management and use of the land and Commons Councils may be a way for that to be achieved.

Section 38 is one of the most important features of the 2006 Act. This replaces the more well-known Law of Property Act 1925 section 194. These provisions relate to the need for consent for works on common land. DEFRA and the Welsh government publishes detailed guidance about the nature of works that will require consent as well as the consent process.

Section 38, in essence, requires consent where works are to be carried out on

common land that falls within the definition of restricted works. Restricted works mean work that prevents or impedes access, or works for the resurfacing of land – unless a repair of an existing track. In particular that includes the erection of fencing, construction of buildings, and digging trenches, ditches and embankments.

One of the key differences between section 194 and section 38 relates to enforcement. Under section 194, the ability to enforce under that provision was limited; action could be taken by the local authority – commoners and the owner of the common may also have rights of action.

Under section 41 of the 2006 Act, any person can apply to court. In some respects that is good as it removes a barrier to enforcement if the local authority does not want to take action. On the other hand, it is difficult to insist on the authority taking action when they can simply say that it is open to others to do so should they wish.

Even if consent is given under section 8 that does not make lawful work that would otherwise be unlawful. In other words, even with a section 38 consent, the commoners or the owner of the common might be able to argue that there is an interference with their rights.

One of the most-anticipated elements of the 2006 Act related to the ability to make an application to correct the register.

When the act was being debated there was concern that it might open the floodgates to applications either to add or take away common land which is seen as an important environmental and leisure resource – albeit its farming value is often overlooked by the authorities – and the authorities did not want to see it diminished. As a result, circumstances in which it is possible to try and correct the register are limited. There are now detailed regulations on the extent to which it is possible to make applications to remove land from the register, alter or vary rights and deal with mistakes in the register.

Notably there are also provisions to deal with exchange land applications, i.e. land is removed from common – for example to allow wind turbines to be built – and suitable land is substituted. The application is made either to DEFRA or to the Welsh government. In theory if the land to be removed is less than 200m2 no exchange land is required but in most cases, unless exceptional reasons can be shown, it will still be required and most significant schemes would of course be much larger than 200m2.

Finally, it is often assumed that there is virtually nothing the landowner can do on common land because anything will inevitably interfere with the rights of common. This is incorrect. In theory a landowner can do anything on common land provided, of course, it does not interfere with the rights. For example, the landowner can graze stock provided the grazing capacity of the common is sufficient for the registered rights as well as the landowner’s stock. When grazing was the primary focus of commons the landowner’s use seldom caused argument. However, farming incomes are declining, less stock is being turned out and there are more opportunities for landowners to try and use marginal land to gain access to conservation schemes or renewables projects as a source of income.

I suspect that this will be an area of the law relating to commons that will come under scrutiny in the next few years.

Rory Hutchings is director and head of rural practice at JCP Solicitors rory.hutchings@jcpsolicitors.co.uk Related competencies include: Agriculture, Management of the natural environment and landscape, Sustainability rics.org/journals 11

Land

Water management

Water wars With drought on the increase in a mainly arid continent what is the future for water in Australia if it is not recognised as a public good?

Sam Paton

For decades until Prime Minister John Howard’s government’s reforms in 2004 with what was known as the National Water Initiative, and then in 2007 with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, irrigation water entitlements in Australia were directly linked to land title and transferred with that title whenever a farm property was sold. This was perceived to have created

Table 1. Levels of water consumption in Australian agribusiness Crop

Consumption in Ml/ha

Wine grapes

1.5–3

Perennial pasture

4

Cotton

8

Irrigated cereal crops (barley, oats, wheat)

5

Rice

12–13

Almonds

10

Note: a megalitre is a million litres of water.

12 Journal July/August 2020

inflexibility insofar as many landholders who held large water entitlements along with their land were not necessarily using these entitlements to their fullest extent.

Nevertheless, in this rigid environment, water entitlements were probably priced more appropriately than currently.

Inadvertently, when water rights were unbundled from land title, today, some 15 years later this has led to irrigation water being commoditised. Virtually any private or corporate entity can hold and stockpile water entitlements while not necessarily using the entitlement directly in relation to a landholding. This situation is also true for both traded river licensing entitlements and groundwater licences.

Australia is one of the most arid continents on the planet, and most of the irrigated agricultural farming systems are down the eastern coast from Queensland through to southern Victoria, and then west to South Australia. There is a vast area of desert across the Nullarbor Plain to the West Australian farming zone.

The other important point is that various agricultural systems use largely divergent quantities of water for irrigation expressed in terms of megalitres per hectare. Table 1 shows various levels of water consumption for a sample of irrigated crops and pastures typically used in Australian agribusiness.

Water trading by state: Victoria Depending on the river system in question, high security irrigation water entitlements can now be traded in other irrigation zones covering different river systems, both in Victoria and interstate.

In relation to groundwater entitlements that come from underwater aquifers, a particular landholder in any Victorian region can typically only trade its groundwater entitlement to another irrigator in a specified zone. Often the overall volume of groundwater that can be extracted in any particular geographical zone is heavily regulated and this was a positive feature of Victorian groundwater management.

Controversy has emerged over a groundwater irrigation zone north of Shepparton, Victoria, known as the Katunga Deep Lead aquifer. A major corporate entity apparently controls 17 per cent of

the groundwater in this zone and other irrigators fear potential spikes in the price of groundwater plus over-extraction of the resource. Since 2001 legislation has required any farm dam larger than 25Ml to be licensed. This regulated uncontrolled damming of farm gullies and catchment areas that were traditionally feeder systems to creeks and tributaries to the major rivers.

Often the overall volume of groundwater that can be extracted in any particular geographical zone is heavily regulated, and this was a positive feature of Victorian groundwater management. For example, if two potato farmers in a district are irrigating from a groundwater aquifer, there must be a minimum setback distance between their respective bores and the amount of water they pump is monitored by a meter. This has prevented the previous problem of over-extraction from the

aquifer whereby the overall water table was becoming depleted and dropping.

New South Wales The state has a complex system of water trading management, where the volume of water that can be traded is held as a water share and this must be matched with what is known as a delivery entitlement for the irrigator to physically ship the water to the farm property in question from, say, the Murrumbidgee river. That is, the volume of water stated on the share certificate in megalitres must match the volume stated on a separate document, known as the delivery entitlement, which the irrigator must possess.

Other twists that have emerged in relation to the commoditising of irrigation water include the fact that state-owned and taxpayer-funded irrigation water-storage

facilities provide backup to the state’s river systems, and yet private sector water traders were never required to contribute to the funding of the state-owned structures.

An analogy could be drawn with the state-owned linkages between Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia of the poles and wires network used by energy distributors and retailers since privatisation of the power grid.

South Australia Irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin west of the Victorian border and southern New South Wales use the same trading arrangements for high-security river entitlements as their counterparts in Victoria and New South Wales. Again, groundwater in South Australia is heavily regulated, and cannot be traded out of a particular geographical zone. rics.org/journals 13

Land

Water management

Queensland Greater regulation has emerged over the past ten years in terms of dam construction permits, and groundwater is also regulated in this area to be maintained within zones.

Western Australia Unlike the eastern states, Western Australia has maintained a state-controlled irrigation water supply system, which is administered by the Western Australia Waters and Rivers Commission. One criticism valuers have of the water register database in that state is that it is often difficult to obtain information on the latest trade pricing when an irrigation entitlement changes hands. The system does use rural property agents as brokers to sell water from farmer to farmer, and the water is predominantly used for horticulture and viticulture.

However, water cannot be sold to some corporate intermediary such as a hedge fund or private individuals to hold speculatively, as can happen in the eastern states.

As was the case in the eastern states, the water must be used by a primary producer and water cannot be traded out of the zone. For example, a Swan River wine sector operation on the fringe of greater Perth could not divest its entitlement to a Margaret River irrigator hundreds of kilometres to the south in another zone.

Tasmania TasWater, the Tasmanian statutory authority, controls all irrigation water allocations and licensing in the state.

This system has worked quite effectively.

Some nine years ago, Ian Douglas, the national coordinator of Fair Water Use Australia, commented on the unintended consequences of the federal national water reforms. The justification for these government changes was that free market forces were the best way to ensure appropriate allocation of irrigation water and improve capital-starved public utilities’ performance. However, Australia’s move to privatise water trading is at odds with the global trend, where more water services are reverting to public ownership. It is a cause of concern that several major corporate entities hold very large tranches of water entitlements and yet do not actively farm 14 Journal July/August 2020

Australia’s water trading and management system is once again crying out for reform irrigated land, and the obvious by-product has been a significant spike in the price of high-security irrigation water, and an increase in the value of secure groundwater.

One positive by-product of water being more commercially promoted has been that higher use industries or those that had relatively marginal net returns, have been forced to review their position in the industry. Two examples are the growing of lower-value field crops such as tomatoes under irrigation and irrigated dairy farming.

The new gold standard for intensive horticultural production vine tomatoes is under glass with full environmental controls and nominal drip irrigation water requirements. Equally, the dairying areas that are now sought after in Tasmania and south-western Victoria in particular are in high rainfall zones that need no irrigation.

Australia has suffered two major droughts of extended duration in the past 20 years. The inevitable impact of climate change has redrawn the parameters for assessing drought severity, because the Millennium drought in Australia that ran from 1998 to 2009 was considered a one in 100-year event in terms of severity, and yet the new droughts in Queensland and New South Wales that emerged in 2017 were as severe as any historic droughts on record.

Accordingly, managing the interests and expectations of agribusiness irrigators, domestic users and water for the environment has become more complex, complicated further by the emergence of speculators holding large quantities of irrigation water entitlements. Under a capitalist system, corporate speculators can lease out water at a high premium in droughts or can sell on a spiked spot price a high security permanent entitlement.

When government controlled these river entitlements this did not happen, and state water authorities in general managed water allocation and trading effectively. The new

battleground is groundwater resources.

The underground aquifer was historically seen as a natural resource to be managed by government. Speculators now see it as a new commodity to add to their portfolio.

This is a worrying trend, and Australia’s water trading and management system is once again crying out for reform. The original concept, now proved to be fatally flawed, was that creating property rights for irrigators and the ability to trade water would promote economic development, create more wealth and use less water.

Peter Cosier commented the following in The Guardian in 2016 (bit.ly/waterreformau). ‘… we saw a centralist, top down program driven by government agencies, where one arm of government produced a plan while another arm spent billions of dollars without any genuine consultation with the communities affected.

‘More warning signs came when the then Abbott government capped environmental water buybacks and abolished the independent National Water Commission, simultaneously shutting down the sustainable river’s audit that was designed to measure river health.’

The issue remains topical, with ABC television’s 7:30 Report which aired on Tuesday 5 May 2020 querying the federal government’s lack of scrutiny in relation to Chinese government-related entities purchasing large volumes of water entitlements connected to river systems in northern New South Wales that feed the Murray-Darling Basin region.

Sam Paton FRICS is registered valuer and agricultural economist at Agribusiness Valuations Australia sam@agrivaluations.com.au Related competencies include: Environmental management, Legal/ regulatory compliance, Sustainability

Land

Soil science

Digging deep Soil can be valued by its productivity, its condition, and what it can give back. How can we influence these factors, what might it cost and what might it return?

Ian McKenzie and Robert Knight

Soil as an asset has been overlooked for too long but the sector has now undoubtedly woken up to its value. It’s a hot topic and rightly so, as whether growing grass for livestock or planting seeds to grow grain or vegetables, it underpins everything we do. The earth’s soil was created millions of years ago. It varies with every step across a field, it changes each day and behaves differently depending on rain or shine. The soil’s texture, based on its proportions of sand, silt and clay, dictates what you can

do with it. Its nutritional content, organic fraction and structural condition are all influenced by what activities you have carried out with it and this alters what uses you can put it to now.

After a few decades, post-war UK agriculture became something of a victim of its own success. Producing cheaper and cheaper food and lowering the cost of production by striving for yield and specialisation has come at a cost. The changes that have taken place to achieve this and some of the effects on the soil are described in Table 1 (on p.16). This shows the soil matrix scores from land analysed in 2014 and again in 2018.

The impact of the past on today’s production can be surprisingly consistent year on year. We manage neighbouring farms under contract agreements that have had different histories, different rotations and therefore different soil conditions. For the same level of management and input

they consistently return a different output.

One example has given an eight per cent average increase in output between farms for the same level of input. At today’s prices that is £112 per hectare average on the bottom line for no apparent difference in cost or inputs. Over ten years on 1,000ha that’s £1.12m.

Soil benchmarking and valuation analysis helps us to monitor and make changes to affect these differences. The scientific measurement and interpretation has been carried out by Indigro, our agronomy partners. We have several farms and estates with a passion to reverse the adverse effects of farming on their soils and we are auditing, monitoring and benchmarking those changes with this tool. Table 2 (on p.17) shows the dashboard page from the Indigro and Fisher German matrix soils condition calculator.

The dashboard applies a weighted score to the parameters chosen to be measured rics.org/journals 15

Land

Soil science

and those scores are then factored to populate a total for that field or block.

In this hypothetical field example the condition score is at 5.95 when first measured and scored. The process is then repeated four years later, and each change

is logged and the direction of travel as a result of management is demonstrated for each measurement, then the overall weighted score is calculated. In this case it has increased to 7.17 – a healthy improvement in a short period.

Table 1. Example of applications of organic manures Current soil value: 2.1% organic matter Desired value: 3.1% organic matter Uplift needed: 1%

Compost: Price per tonne

£5.00

Delivery per tonne

£2.50

Application per tonne

£2.00

Dry matter

70%

Organic matter

29.7% of dry matter

Breakdown per tonne: Organic matter (dry weight)

2,0790%

P2 O 5

3.7kg

K 2O

5.9kg

MgO

3.2kg 3.2kg

SO 3 Compost required per ha

105,820kg

Cost

£1,005.29

Soil benefits per ha: Organic matter

21,999.98kg

P2 O 5

391.53kg

K 2O

624.34kg

MgO

338.62kg

SO 3

338.62kg

Summary: Total compost required per ha

105,820kg

Cost

£1005.29

Soil benefits: Organic matter

kg/ha

p/kg

Nutrient value

21,999.98

P2 O 5

391.53

0.71

£277.99

K 2O

624.34

0.46

£287.20

MgO

338.62

0.34

£115.13

SO 3

338.62

0.32

£108.36 Total value: £788.68

Net cost = compost cost less nutrient value: £216.61 per ha Cost per year over 8-year rotation: £27.08

16 Journal July/August 2020

The calculations feeding into this are chosen from measurements we deemed essential to monitor the soil’s value and its improvement. It is based on a skilled and detailed farm-field-soil survey. Each element has a scaling system behind the spreadsheet that builds this matrix. The visual soil assessment (VSA) score and its scale is shown as an example.

The following parameters are measured.

••Soil classification: the bit you cannot alter but has an impact on the value is the traditional land classification. This has a low weighting.

••Drainage: the investment required in drainage for ditch or underdrain systems is long term and gets costed and valued within the scale.

••VSA analysis: probably the most important factor in the weighted score as it holds so much information about how productive the soil is and its current health. It’s an industry-recognised field soil analysis measurement, the results of which build into our matrix score.

••pH status and liming requirement: an elementary but vital factor for successful crop production.

••Phosphate indices: these are notoriously difficult and costly to improve. Both their minimum levels and, in the future, probably maximum levels need to be held to contribute to this score.

••Potassium and magnesium levels: contribute to the final weighted score.

••Organic matter: is monitored and scored.

It makes such a difference to workability, shear strength, bulk density, water-holding capacity, nutrient retention and how quickly soils warm, hence it carries a high importance factor.

••Weed burden: included as part of the monitoring as it is essential for sustainable production to stabilise or reduce seedbanks of weeds such as blackgrass.

Costing the change We measure and benchmark the condition score based on the matrix then apply cost calculations as these individual parameters alter. This might be to demonstrate what it would cost to rectify a change between two scores over time or to set a theoretical optimum level for a certain soil that could

Table 2. Farm/field condition dashboard Location: Manor Farm — 25% Sand / 38% Silt / 37% Clay First analysis 01/03/2014 Factor

Importance of factor

Actual value

Subsequent analysis 03/03/2018

Score 1-10

Weighted score

Actual value

Score 1-10

Weighted core

How scores changed 2014-2018

Fixed/Long-term land factors Agricultural land classification

10%

2

9

0.90

2

9

0.90

Field drainage average investment required

15%

£200

8

1.20

£200

8

1.20

30%

25

5

1.50

45

8

2.40

Variable/Short-term land factors Visual soil assessment score

3

Worms observed*

7

pH

10%

5.4

4

0.40

6

6

0.60

P (mg/l)

5%

16

7

0.35

18

8

0.40

K (mg/l)

3%

395

7

0.21

440

7

0.21

Mg (mg/l)

2%

56

7

0.14

65

8

0.16

Organic matter

15%

2.8

5

0.75

3.9

6

0.90

Weed burden

10%

9

5

0.50

13

4

0.40

Land total

100%

*The VSA Index methodology threshold for worms observed is 15, however, we report numbers below that for interest

5.95

Scale:

1

2

7.17

3

Very poor

be attained through management. We can then show what it would cost over time to get the soil into that condition.

• Landlord and tenant can agree the matrix score at the beginning of the tenancy. Then it can be monitored at intervals and land returned in similar health and condition or compensation paid for loss or improvement to score.

• Investors and owners can take land at a given score, manage appropriately, monitor and benchmark progress to demonstrate the value added.

• The matrix and cost analysis options give you the investment required to influence the change you want.

Farm management planning to predict and demonstrate how we can influence the soil status and score is where the tool really comes into its own and assists us. Different soil types react differently to applications of products such as phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and lime, but the standard data is a good start to gauge the amounts required over and above maintenance dressings to increase indices. With current

fertiliser price factored in, we can then cost that change.

The organic matter change is more complicated, depending on: • local sources and costs of manures • changing cultivation systems • cover crop use • rotational changes including introducing grass in a rotation and even mob grazing systems.

Calculations and cost forecasts All these factors influence the speed and the increase or decrease of organic matter in the soil. Our costing calculator starts with options of applying manures but can factor any of the influences that alter rate of organic matter change depending on the local and management constraints.

The first farm calculations have demonstrated some interesting net cost forecasts. It might be costly to apply 105t per hectare of a local manure over eight years of rotation and drill and grow cover crops at various intervals but is it worth the investment? The calculator

4

5

6

7

1.22

8

9

10 Excellent

values the savings in nutrition from the manures applied and predicts the increases achievable. A single percentage shift in soil organic matter would change water-holding capacity by around 200,000–224,000 litres per hectare; provide sufficient food for 750–1,000kg earthworm biomass and lift soil mineral nitrogen by 80–100kg per hectare (of which between 20–30kg would be plant-available over six–12 months).

For a soil bulk density of 1.45 gm/cm3, a value of one per cent soil organic matter equates to 16.8t of organic carbon per hectare. As the world asks us to work on ways to sequestrate carbon, here lies part of the answer and technique and cost to understand how to do just that.

Ian McKenzie MRICS and Robert Knight are agribusiness consultants at Fisher German LLP ian.mckenzie@fishergerman.co.uk robert.knight@fishergerman.co.uk Related competencies include: Agriculture, Management of the natural environment and landscape, Sustainability rics.org/journals 17

Land

Drones

Unlocking drone potential

18 Journal July/August 2020

Innovation in drone technology means businesses will be able to industrialise aerial data capture cost effectively and at scale John McKenna

The use of drones is not new, especially in the construction sector. Large construction firms have, for some time, been using drones successfully for surveying, progress monitoring and inspecting aspects of a building project that are dirty, difficult or dangerous to reach.

And yet, issues remain; largely around quality, responsiveness and cost. This has limited the use of drones and slowed the incorporation of drone data into standard workflows. Thankfully, times are changing.

Technological and regulatory developments are emerging that could unlock the full potential of the drone sector.

Regulatory advances The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is on board with helping the drone industry to move forward. Until recently, CAA regulations have constrained commercial drone missions to operate within ‘visual line of sight’ rules. These rules require the pilot to travel to the mission site. However, the CAA has started to work towards allowing commercial operators to operate ‘beyond visual line of sight’ (BVLOS) for the first time. The key difference is that BVLOS missions no longer need the pilot to travel to the site, instead they can operate remotely, from a control room.

This centralised approach improves with scale on almost every measure, including quality, safety, responsiveness and cost.

Evidence of this shift towards commercial BVLOS drone missions can be seen in the launch of the CAA’s regulatory sandbox in April 2019 (caa.co.uk/innovationhub).

The purpose of the sandbox is to create an environment in which innovation in aviation can be explored in line with the CAA’s core principles of safety, security and consumer protection.

At the time of writing only ten entities have been invited into the sandbox, each with its own distinct focus and expertise, including Amazon for drone deliveries, Volocopter for drone taxis and NATS, the UK’s main airspace operator.

Drones at work on construction sites offer cost saving and safety benefits. Other areas for opportunity include oil and gas and emergency services

For construction, sees.ai is focused on facilitating aerial data capture at scale in industrial environments and is already working with companies such as Skanska, Atkins, NATS and Vodafone across construction, infrastructure and oil and gas. The start-up is backed by Techstars – one of the world’s largest accelerators.

The collaboration between sees.ai and the CAA will allow both organisations to explore frameworks under which regulatory approvals for routine BVLOS operations could be granted.

Harnessing computer vision Highly-automated drones on client sites are paired with human pilots BVLOS in a central control room. The drones are installed on site, or transported to site, and then flown on demand with communications between drone and pilot carried out over the cellular network.

This approach uses computer vision technology – a sub-set of artificial intelligence. It’s a similar technology to that used in autonomous cars, using similar sensors, cameras, LIDAR and inertial measurement units. This technology enables the drone to position itself relative to its environment. In turn this facilitates collision-avoidance and path-planning.

At the same time, this technology also makes it possible for the remote pilot to be inside a three-dimensional twin of the drone’s environment in real-time, giving them a similar insight into the mission as if they were on site.

This approach facilitates the widest range of missions – from simple inspections in open space, to complex, Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) degraded and denied missions around construction sites, under oil rigs and even inside structures and tunnels. The approach can also be used for on-demand and ad-hoc missions, such as emergency response to a security or safety incident or close inspection of a structure with a remote expert in the loop.

This method will change how missions are launched. Using state-of-the-art computer vision, companies will be able to fly multiple drone missions at the same time across the UK, resulting in huge economies of scale.

The result is a solution that is more scalable and more cost effective at scale.

For planners, surveyors and project managers looking to monitor and assess construction sites at large scale this is welcome news. UK businesses will be able to industrialise aerial data capture cost effectively, to optimise their digital workflows and increase their productivity.

Digital twins come of age This development coincides with the increased use of digital twins. While the concept of a digital twin has been around since 2002, thanks to the Internet of Things (IoT) it has become cost-effective.

According to research firm Gartner, digital twins will soon become a mainstream tool for businesses (gtnr.it/digitaltwinsurvey). The UK government is committed to supporting this new way of working – via the National Digital Twin – and is investing to catalyse transition (cdbb.cam.ac.uk).

Gartner defines a digital twin as a software design pattern that represents a physical object with the objective of understanding the asset’s state, responding to changes, improving business operations and adding value. And the value it can add to an organisation is substantial. According to McKinsey, companies that fully exploit a digital workflow can increase productivity by up to 15 per cent. For UK infrastructure spending alone, this could equate to savings of £7bn per year (bit.ly/cdbbdft). sees.ai believes the scale of the data capture opportunity is enormous, as this approach is applicable to almost every drone market, including: • infrastructure • construction • oil and gas • emergency services • real estate, and • nuclear.

John McKenna is chief executive officer of sees.ai jmckenna@sees.ai Related competencies include: Legal/ regulatory compliance, Remote sensing and photogrammetry, Surveying and mapping Further information: More details at www.sees.ai. rics.org/journals 19

Land

Interview

Good news for newts In February this year the district level licensing scheme for great crested newts was expanded to a further 37 local authorities in England. As a result, developers there are now able to deal with their great crested newt legal requirements quickly, simply and sustainably The UK’s largest, most attractive and most protected amphibian: the great crested newt

Dr Tom Tew

Q: What’s the background to the expansion of this great crested newt licensing initiative from NatureSpace?

TT: Developers and operators can now take advantage of the scheme for all types of planning permissions including minerals and waste projects, schools, roads and other infrastructure projects as well as residential and commercial. Great crested newts have a reputation for holding projects up at great expense for developers. A typical story is of a developer who asked his consultant to survey for newts – none was found so the developer dug the foundations then went away for the weekend, only to come back to work on Monday to find newts on site.

His consultant told him to stop work as he didn’t have a licence and the whole site was shut for months while more surveys were carried out so that a licence could be issued.

A few years ago DEFRA did a large analysis of all the previous licence schemes and found that actually they didn’t work very well for newts. Developers 20 Journal July/August 2020

sometimes spent hundreds of thousands of pounds protecting the ponds on-site but, because there was no long-term management, those ponds would end up full of shopping trolleys or fish, and without any newts. So there was pressure from both developers and conservationists to improve the system of licensing.

Under our scheme money paid by developers goes into both a habitat creation scheme that creates quality ponds as well as into an endowment fund that manages and monitors the ponds in perpetuity.

The scheme takes away all the uncertainty and delay for developers, who can come to us at any time of year and receive their paperwork in ten days. That’s in contrast to the previous system where developers applied for their licence only after getting planning permission and had to do their own survey in a narrow springtime window, and then apply to Natural England for their licence. The new scheme works for planners, developers and conservationists,

and can provide an income for farmers and landowners who want to create ponds on their land.

Q: Why are great crested newts important?

TT: The UK has an international responsibility for the species, we are key to conserving the species globally. But because great crested newts are highly protected in law, and also quite common in parts of England, there can often be conflict.

Q: How does the new district licence scheme work?

TT: Essentially, we do all the work for the developer. We have surveyed for newts across 21 planning authorities. We use new surveying techniques, taking just a tiny sample of water which is analysed for newt DNA – we can tell if there are, or were, any newts in the pond. The DNA tests are much more accurate than shining a torch into the pond to try to spot newts.

Q: How practical is it for this to be rolled out across the UK? TT: The scheme works well where there are lots of newts and high development pressure so we think it will be mostly restricted to England.

Q: What are the benefits to farmers and landowners?

TT: For every pond that’s lost we try to create six new ponds so there’s a huge conservation benefit for newts. Those ponds have to be dug somewhere so we pay farmers and landowners both to create new wildlife ponds, and then we pay them an annual fee for pond management that is good for newts. The ponds can’t just go anywhere though, we have a conservation strategy map of areas where we’re trying to improve the landscape for newts and our delivery team will contact landowners in those areas. There is enthusiasm for the scheme because it’s a 25-year contract, with a guaranteed income and is a good diversification opportunity.

IMAGE © NEWT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

So we do a large-scale and intensive and expensive survey of the entire region in spring – the breeding season – and then collate and model the data to produce an impact risk map which is split into four zones that go from red – a newt hot spot – to white – where it is unlikely that there will be any newts. The impact risk map on our website shows planners, developers and land agents whether it’s likely that newts will be present, and no-one has to do their own

Long-term pond monitoring and management is part of the success of the scheme

survey. Developers can then use that map to see how much it would cost for them to use the scheme to get their newt licences.

The charging structure depends on the impact that the development is having on the newts, so if you’re in the red zone, where there’s a big impact, there will be a higher charge. Developers choosing to enter the scheme generally pay between £500 and £5,000 to get a certificate from us. They submit that certificate with their planning application so that the planning authority will know they are in the scheme and give them authorisation. The developers know that all of their money is going towards newt conservation.

Importantly, our scheme is a one-stop shop for developers: the planning authority gives them legal authorisation and they are fully covered so that if they do find a newt they are licensed to pick it up and move it out of harm’s way. Of course, developers can only currently enter the scheme where planning authorities have signed up to it.

Q: How has the development community reacted to the initiative?

TT: There were some sceptics at the start of the scheme on both sides. Some environmentalists thought this was just a money-making scheme, and a way of getting around the law. It is with the latest monitoring showing huge benefits for newts that scepticism is dying down.

Environmental consultants who previously did lots of surveys may now have a bit less work, but they still have a role in the new scheme because an accredited ecologist has to complete the forms for their clients.

Developers are very happy with the scheme – we offer ‘25 per cent of your money back if not entirely satisfied’ and so far not one person has claimed it.

Dr Tom Tew is chief executive officer of NatureSpace tom.tew@naturespaceuk.com Related competencies include: Environmental management, Management of the natural environment and landscape Further information: To find out more about the district level licensing scheme, visit bit.ly/NatureSpaceUK. rics.org/journals 21

Land

UK vineyards

Through the grapevine Diversifying with a vineyard can be a financially astute move for farmers if they know all the risks and challenges Dr Alistair Nesbitt

With direct farm subsidy payments set to reduce after 2021, farmers are looking at additional income streams to keep farms sustainable. There are many ways to be involved in the English wine sector and not all require vine-to-bottle production.

It is possible to grow grapes under contract for established wineries; sell grapes on the stock market or even make wine for others.

Scarff farm vineyard: James Scarff My father and I enrolled in a viticulture for dummies course a few years ago.

We’re farmers and growers, so we decided to just grow the grapes because that’s our expertise, but there’s still a whole business infrastructure and forecasting to put in place. We contacted consultants who set up and install vineyards and supply everything.

Our business consultants helped us with a ten-year forecast business plan, both with and without the vineyard, to see the profitability of both scenarios and make sure it was all sound. Vinescapes talked to us about frost risk and climatology. Then the bank manager came out. I contacted wineries in Sussex and Hampshire to see if they would be interested in us supplying them with grapes. We then worked out a five-year deal with Ridgeview in Ditchling, Sussex. In May 2017, we planted the first vines on 20 acres in Suffolk.

22 Journal July/August 2020

800

UK vineyards

33m

wine drinkers in the UK

2019

3m vines planted

2014

UK sales predicted to reach 40m bottles

£9

average cost of a bottle of still white wine

£25-40

average cost of a bottle of English sparkling wine

We grow the three classic grapes for English sparkling wine, which is the big seller and award winner: 50 per cent Chardonnay, 15 per cent Pinot Meunier and 35 per cent Pinot Noir.

Costing the project You can grow grapes on a budget if you do all the work yourself. Some of this was in our plan, but we didn’t have time to do it all ourselves. When we bought the tractor and sprayer, we went for reliability and a higher cost than I’d budgeted. I bought a new sprayer from a German dealer and paid in euros which saved me £6,000. Then there’s frost protection – we went down the route of cold air drains from Australia. We got a 40 per cent leader grant for the fans, which is still available. You have to go into it understanding that you will be writing cheques for four years before you get any money coming back in. Which means you need a bank manager that understands your business and the project well.

It’s a long-term project with a 35-year life. I think you have to invest early. Don’t assume you can spread expenses over that 35-year span. Take a deep breath and buy that fancy recycling sprayer. Cutting corners means cutting the quality of grapes. I would say you need to invest close to £30,000 per hectare for something of this size, plus the cost of equipment. The profit is a complete turnaround compared to wheat, which is relatively easy to grow. For us, the biggest risk is frost. Our business plan says we will get payback in year nine if we don’t have frost. Lots of factors are out of your control.

Weather is important. Grapes need some rainfall to replenish and keep growing but towards harvest time from the end of September to the beginning of October you want dry, bright, sunny weather and a good site on a south-facing slope.

Having the right people around you is important; an agronomist, a vineyard manager. Delegate, and let them answer the questions. I’m still learning, we’re only three years in, so now I’m about 80 per cent confident about my decisions but I think there’s a risk in making all the decisions yourself without talking it through.

For more updates on James’ story on Twitter visit @JamesScarff.

IMAGE © VIV BLAKEY

Even if you’ve got the land and you can afford to plant vines, remember that vineyards are hugely labour-intensive

Rathfinny estate: Cameron Roucher There’s a saying in the wine sector: ‘To make a small fortune start with a large one.’ The initial capital cost involved in a vineyard is hard to estimate because it’s dependent on size. Once you get to a certain size you get economies of scale because regardless of the size of the vineyard you can’t live without machinery, tractors, a sprayer. Some things you can hire or contract people to do and a lot depends on how much groundwork is needed and your location. For instance, where we are in Alfriston, Sussex, we have no need for deer fencing, which is expensive.

You have to get a vineyard to about year four when things start to produce, so that’s about £25,000 per hectare, then add plant machinery costs on top.

Even if you’ve got the land and you can afford to plant vines, vineyards are hugely labour-intensive, then there’s the cost of chemicals, and tractor operations. It’s expensive because things are done by hand that can’t be mechanised, or that are difficult or expensive to do so. Pruning, for example, requires someone to go to every vine and make cuts. Once the vineyard is producing, returns are very healthy at the moment in comparison to lots of other agriculture.

The most important thing is location.

Nothing can beat a good site. For a successful UK vineyard, you need a good spot, not too

high, not too frosty or exposed, in a warm part of the country with just the right amount of rainfall. A frost-free site is ideal because frost can be devastating financially. It can wipe you out. Even on sites where you can fight frost, it’s labour-intensive and costly.

Another huge consideration is to know what your end product will be. Whether you are thinking about contract growing or producing a wine, which is a whole other kettle of fish, take professional advice.

On a good site with good years if you are contract growing you’d see a return between year eight and ten. If you’re making wine, particularly sparkling wine, you need four years to get the vines in production then three years to age the wine before any money comes in at all. Other than frost, cashflow is the greatest risk. And the weather, which you can’t do a lot about.

Long-term rental of land or selling under contract are definitely viable options for traditional landowners that are otherwise leasing land for arable. I would think most wine companies would pay a premium on what the rental was for arable if you can get a long-term rental for 30 years. Selling under contract is another option, just make sure you have a contract before you plant.

Tying down a wine company to ensure there’s a home for that fruit is crucial and helps sell the story to the bank manager.

Rathfinny bought the property in 2010 and did the first planting in 2012. We grow Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier, the traditional grapes for sparkling wine, plus some Pinot Gris for our still wine. Within those varieties we have some different clones, as in traditional selection, they each give different characteristics; some will be high yield, others full of flavour, others more resistant to diseases, so we spread our bets.

If you make wine, you need to ask yourself how you will get it to market.

If you’re small you can sell through local outlets. If you’re really big you can talk to big distributors but if you’re in the middle, you can get stuck with too much product for local restaurants and your cellar door but not enough for a distributor. I’d say one of the most crucial business decisions is ‘What are we going to sell and how are we going to sell it?’

For more information on the Rathfinny estate visit bit.ly/Rathfinnyestate.

Dr Alistair Nesbitt is chief executive officer at Vinescapes alistair@vinescapes.com Related competencies include: Land use and diversification Further information: For advice about grape growing and wine making visit bit.ly/Vinescapes rics.org/journals 23

Thinking of selling your land?

We have the right vehicle to maximise the return on your land

www.rosconngroup.com Rosconn Strategic Land Limited T: 01789 294520 E: enquiries@rosconngroup.com

Trusted Transparent Innovative