Wheat yields in the east midlands were compromised by the extreme heat and drought conditions at the end of the 2017-18 growing season (5-10% down) but perhaps not as adversely affected as areas with a predomination of lighter soils (up to 20% down).

Unfortunately at the time when key agronomic decisions were being made (March – May), we were experiencing anything but drought! Extremely wet conditions throughout the early spring meant that fungicide applications were made when disease pressure was high, and the costs reflect this.  Total spray costs in our sample averaged &263/ha which is close to a “normal” budget figure, with the benefit of hindsight could savings have been made?

As with any cost of production calculation, yield is almost always the dominant factor, our analysis shows that a yield increase to 9.65t/ha would bring the pre-rent cost of production for our sample of farms downs to under &100/t.  At 10t/ha the cost of production pre-rent would be &95.88/ha.

The addition of a typical rental figure of &370/ha puts the cost of production for our survey to &151.92/t.  Prices peaked during late August 2018 to around &195/t for feed wheat and seem to have settled recently around &165-&170/t. 

Following a high price year it is easy to think that yield is king, farmers must not make applications without considering economic returns.  Those farmers within our survey who consistently return the highest yields do not necessarily have the highest input costs per hectare.  Those returning the highest margins do not necessarily have the highest yields.

As always, knowing your cost of production should be the base of any marketing strategy, benchmarking your costs against other businesses is an invaluable tool when considering business strategy, tendering for new land or making machinery purchase decisions.  Fisher German has real comparative date from business across the UK and are able to advise on optimum and target levels for farm businesses looking to adapt.

&/t WW COP 2018: 109.68    Average Yield:  8.76

Pre-Rent

For further information, contact Tom Paybody on 07870 807236 or email here

Increasing commercial pressure on the Code Operators to upgrade and roll out new infrastructure, coupled with increasingly resistant Landlords, has resulted in a number of Upper Tier Lands Tribunal cases. These have dealt with issues surrounding access to sites and entering new agreements.

There have been three “Code Cases” since 28 December 2017 (being the inception of the ECC), each case covering a slightly different issue.

The question raised in CTIL v The University of London, was whether the right to undertake exploratory surveys on buildings, was a “Code Right”.  Martin Rodgers QC, the Deputy President of the Upper Tier Lands Tribunal, decided it is only reasonable that the right to request access for exploratory surveys, is a code right. Therefore, Code Operators do have the right to request the ability to enter buildings to do surveys. If parties cannot agree terms, the Tribunal will have the power to impose a temporary agreement (subject to conditions).

Martin Rodgers QC in the EE & H3G v The London Borough of Islington 2018 believed there was a strong arguable case for EE & H3G passing the paragraph 21 tests (public benefit outweighing the private loss). He therefore granted interim code rights to EE & H3G to install equipment on Threadgold House, ahead of the second hearing regarding imposing permanent code rights.

The second case between EE & H3G v The London Borough of Islington, heard during the week commencing 21 January 2019, is the first Tribunal case to consider common areas of dispute in the wider market (including how rent is to be assessed). Market participants wait with baited breath, as it is hoped that the decision to this case will provide guidance to all parties on key matters, such as how to assess rent. The decision for this case is expected by 24 February 2019.

There are still further cases where the Lands Tribunal will be required to resolve disputes. This includes a case to be heard towards the end of February about the intentions of a site provider to redevelop a property and resist a code agreement being imposed. A further case is to be heard as to the rights of a code operator to impose an agreement on a site provider, who is already party to a code agreement with another code operator.

For further information contact Chris Hicks on 07808 571067 or email here

However improving permanent pasture requires early prior consideration as in many cases it will require permission from Natural England, which can take 1-3 months to obtain. The EIA (Agriculture) Regulations protect ‘uncultivated’ or ‘semi-natural’ land from agricultural activities that increase productivity. This includes ploughing, increasing fertiliser use or soil improvers, sowing seed to increase productivity, draining the land or spraying off existing vegetation.

Even if there are no immediate proposals of any works that fall into the above descriptions, it is worth emphasising at this stage the benefit of retaining clear and accurate field records of all fertiliser, spray and cultivations applied to land for any future purposes.

Provided it isn’t semi-natural and has no heritage or special landscape features, land of 2 ha or below can be improved without further permission.

‘Uncultivated’ land is defined as land that has not been cultivated in the last 15 years by either physical means (e.g. ploughing) or chemical means (e.g. applying fertiliser). ‘Semi-natural’ land includes priority habitats, heritage or archaeological features, or protected landscape and usually hasn’t been intensively farmed, such as unimproved grassland or lowland heath. To carry out improvement activities on land the falls into either category, a screening decision must be applied for, which will confirm whether the activity can proceed, or if full permission needs to be sought in the form of an Environmental Impact Assessment.

The process of submitting an application for a screening decision can be complex and time-consuming. It involves completion and submission of a form with full details of the proposed activities, historic management of the land parcels involved and any existing stewardship schemes. The form is available online and must be sent to Natural England with detailed maps as well as an Environmental Screening Report. This report should include a landscape, heritage and biodiversity desktop assessment with field surveys to verify or otherwise the results, and details of the likely effect of the proposal on soil, water, land, historic features and biodiversity. The local biological records centre and county archaeologist will also need to be consulted to provide statements of their opinion on the proposed works to any local or regional areas of interest. 

For larger proposals, it is worth considering any actions that might mitigate any negative effects of the works, such as timings or duration and retaining buffer strips of unimproved land.

Although the above might seem excessive, the penalties for improving grassland without permission are likely to require the land to be restored to its previous condition and can result in prosecution, fines of up to &5,000 and cross compliance penalties.

We have submitted a number of EIA screening applications for activities to improve permanent pasture, and would recommend seeking advice early in the process.

For further information, contact Charlotte Gore on 07785 425317 or email here