Written evidence submitted by Guildford Borough Council
on behalf of Guildford Business Forum Rural Group (HAH0033)
Introduction:
This submission is made by the Economic Development department of Guildford Borough Council on behalf of the Rural Group of Guildford Business Forum. The latter is responsible for oversight and delivery of the Council’s Rural Economic Strategy 2017-2022, (downloadable from www.guildford.gov.uk/ruraleconomy)
Executive Summary:
Detailed Consultation Response
1.1 Surrey’s very mixed rural economy has come about, in part, through the past financial difficulties faced by farmers. Fifty years ago, many Surrey farms were small, family-owned businesses that reflected centuries of largely unchanged husbandry and practice, concentrated on arable, dairy, grazing and woodland. Following the break-up of the Milk Marketing Board in 1998 the supremacy of the supermarkets drove down the retail price of milk and most of our dairy herds became unprofitable – even some eminent and long-established ones – and were sold off. The overall poor quality of Surrey’s soil added a further limitation on what could be produced, hence the amount of land given over to the grazing of cattle, sheep and horses and – as an alternative to farming – woodland management, timber production and tourism.
1.2 What replaced our traditional farm businesses came through diversification. In some cases that has meant subsidy through funding programmes such as EAFRD and LEADER, as well as the UK’s Basic Payment Scheme and specific initiatives like Countryside Stewardship. Such subsidies have thus been essential but are generally not user-friendly in terms of application bureaucracy, accuracy of mapping data and the process of actually securing payment. In Surrey tenant farmers especially rely on the Basic Payment Scheme so we welcome the Government’s proposal to safeguard the total amount of cash funding for the sector during the agricultural transition and to the end of the current parliament.
1.3 It must be right to target future subsidies where need is greatest rather than according to the acreage of land owned. For example, a speculative absentee landowner has attempted to sell a large grazing field in multiple parcels of land – using a sales prospectus that promotes the area’s perceived wealth, its proximity to London and the increasingly high cost of local rural housing. In this case our Council Leader intervened to exercise an Article 4 direction to protect the field’s fragmentation for what were claimed as equestrian and similar uses while blatantly implying that (?residential) development might be possible because of the pressure locally to build in the Green Belt.
1.4 The loss and/or reduction of essential on-farm traditional rural occupations such as ditch-digging has not been adequately replaced by contractors who may have the requisite technology but lack the good local knowledge that takes time to acquire.
1.5 Another aspect of necessary on-farm maintenance that will become increasingly important is the provision and maintenance of broadband services, especially where these are above the ground rather than channelled below. Whilst not directly relevant to the proposed withdrawal of basic payments, a farmer’s connectivity – or more likely the lack of it – will be increasingly important in providing the evidence of productivity on which future farming subsidy and support may depend. Because rural broadband is generally poor we suggest for now that simplification of the current CAP will be best achieved by:
2.1 The promise to simplify Countryside Stewardship schemes is welcome. Here in Guildford, the fine balance that exists between a buoyant economy and a sustainable environment risks being compromised by the demands for new affordable housing and the related infrastructure, whether new roads or better broadband. Through Surrey Nature Partnership and supported by Guildford Environmental Forum our Council encourages local businesses to engage with the emerging Natural Capital agenda by investing in local schemes that might benefit their business(es) – e.g. upstream planting of trees to reduce risk of seasonal flooding downstream. Such schemes can complement – but should not be expected to replace – Government support through the Countryside Stewardship scheme and other schemes needed through the proposed agricultural transition period.
2.2 As indicated at 1.3 above, it seems right to reflect the reduction of payments in the ability of those most able to bear the impact. On the other hand, a mixed approach applying smaller reduction percentages to a larger number of farmers could be an effective way to incentivise farmers more quickly to adapt their businesses and improve their productivity. Our concern that the effects of Brexit should be minimised leads us to request that the period of agricultural transition for the continuation of Direct Payments be as long as possible.
2.3 We welcome the proposed focus on the environment through re-distribution of current spending on direct payments. Protection of the natural and farmed landscape through “public money for public goods” is one thing – the loss of business competitiveness through the post-Brexit import of cheap imports is quite another. Because many of Surrey’s small farms are run by ageing farmers (average age is 58) – or by smallholding hobbyists – we need to encourage more diversification, support specialist skills development and stimulate the generation of new ideas through innovation:
2.4 We have not received specific feedback about barriers to capital investment that can boost profitability and improve animal and plant health on-farm. Surrey’s rural economy is diverse and its proximity to London, Heathrow and Gatwick Airports and the motorway network is reflected in the cost of living and working here. On that basis and reflecting more general economic views as the Brexit negotiations continue, barriers to capital investment are likely to be:
2.5 In his Foreword to Guildford Borough Council’s Rural Economic Strategy 2017-2022 the Council Leader states: “We must work especially with young people to involve them in ensuring that Guildford’s countryside remains the adaptable working landscape it has always been.” We have set the following education-related Supplementary Objectives for delivery in partnership with Surrey County Agricultural Society, Country Land and Business Association, National Farmers Union, Surrey Hills AONB and others:
Programmes like BBC1’s Countryfile and Blue Planet are presenting real world farming and natural history issues to a new and wide audience. Together with local events like agricultural shows and farmers’ markets, the impact on public opinion by these programmes provides an opportunity to generate greater interest and understanding of rural matters among young people.
3.1 Straddling the North Downs, Surrey’s landscape is rich in natural and built heritage, with the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) celebrating its 60th anniversary in 2018. The AONB “family” consists of Surrey Hills Enterprises, the Surrey Hills Society and the Surrey Hills Trust which together protect and manage the rural landscape and the communities in and around the AONB. The further encouragement to farmers and landowners to protect the landscape should be supported by investment in skills and continuing professional development. In terms of what kinds of public goods the government should support, Surrey’s diverse landscapes mean that the likely priorities will be these (by order of importance):
3.2 Of the other options listed as possible public goods meriting government support, these are our top three priorities in order of importance:
4.1 As a Borough Council having – unusually – its own Rural Economic Strategy, Guildford is already familiar with extensive partnership working. From an Economic Development perspective, local issues need local solutions, which can of course involve local administration of UK or EU-funded schemes e.g. the DCMS Local Full Fibre Networks or 5G Trials and Testbeds programmes. Key partners in such ventures – but locally-co-ordinated – can include neighbouring Boroughs and Districts, Local Enterprise Partnerships, Surrey County Council, the University of Surrey, Network Rail, telecoms providers, etc. For Guildford’s rural economy the organisations shown at 2.5 are also important local delivery partners.
4.2 Given our proximity to London and the M25 we welcome the proposed focus on the environment which greatly enhances Surrey’s rural economy in terms of its natural and built heritage and tourism. Section 8 of our Rural Economic Strategy 2017-2022 focuses on the future digital economy and our related plans, which also seek to improve biodiversity and actively support Surrey Nature Partnership in delivering a Natural Capital Investment Strategy for Surrey. We will continue to support the Surrey Hills AONB “family” (see 3.1) but also in the AONB’s wider context as one of the nine Protected Landscapes that together enhance the London City Region.
4.3 We also recognise that there is a balance to be struck between food production through farming and protection and enhancement of the environment through local strategies as outlined at 4.2. We live in a wasteful society that generates much food waste and the costs of producing waste (in effect) – then the costs of disposing of it – are both unacceptable and unsustainable, especially where farmers were subsidised to over-produce. This has been addressed to some extent by the elimination of the 1980s EU butter mountains and wine lakes and – as a result of the recession – the growth of food banks and more relaxed interpretation of “Best Before” and “Sell/Use by” dates. The market drives everything and the use of public money – or even the exercise of public policy in potential areas of import tariffs – needs to be thought through very carefully in order to avoid potential distortion of the market. At a local level there is a market for more expensive food and drink, yet our local churches are kept busy collecting and re-distributing food to those who are struggling financially. Somehow the costs of food waste production and disposal – whoever bears those costs as producers, retailer or consumers – need to be turned into opportunities to re-calibrate societal attitudes and behaviours that change and enhance local communities. Those last two words are key.
5.1 Our response here is simple – any transition period should be as long possible. The UK’s current environmental, farming and rural affairs policy has evolved from the post-War years of excessive use of pesticides and artificial fertilisers, through the subsidised over-production of consumer foods to the growing realisation that real harm is being done to our planet through some policies of excess . It is worth re-stating that here in Surrey the economic, environmental, health and social cases for a transition period that results in a “Green Brexit” will be overwhelmingly in favour of policies that will enable and provide:
5.2 All three of the outcomes shown in 5.1 are affected by our current preferred lifestyles, especially choices about where we live, work – and how we travel between the two. In Appendix A of Guildford’s Rural Economic Strategy 2017-2022 we identify five strategic priorities that provide the context for delivering a Green Brexit in Surrey:
In a small county like Surrey, all of these priorities will make a huge difference to daily living – but also imply huge changes in the way we will be able to live. The Government’s targets for new and truly affordable housing require infrastructure – especially ultrafast broadband (1Gbps and above) to enable more home and community working and less commuting. Similarly, through the Internet of Things, electric vehicles, autonomous and connected vehicles, new agri-technologies and the related power infrastructure all require new technologies that will support a Green Brexit but which are still being developed. For that reason, we recommend a transition period that will take account of the scale of change we all face in order “to become the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it.”
6.1 We cannot usefully comment on this last point other than to re-state our view that the diversity of the UK’s landscapes need to be recognised at the local level and managed as locally as possible. That involves encouraging local communities to participate in locally-led policy-making and delivery. We offer the approach taken in our Rural Economic Strategy 2017-2022 as a model capable of reproduction elsewhere in the UK, reflecting the natural heritage of each area in terms of its farm and land management practices and encouraging greater diversity of natural habitats to support greater diversity of wildlife.
May 2018
1