The Accidental Smallholder Forum
Community => Coffee Lounge => Topic started by: Rosemary on April 19, 2016, 10:50:50 am
-
I could greet. Not eligible for the Small Farm Grant Scheme to improve the smallholding because we jointly earn too much. Even though I'm a sole director of The Accidental Smallholder and have very little income. If we were crofters - even if we were two ex-barristers from London - we'd qualify for the parallel crofting scheme, where there is no income bar. OneScotland, my arse. Feeling bitter.
-
:( >:(
That sucks.
OTOH, you could be in England, and the Civil Servants would take all the SFP money, leaving very little for actual farmers.
It still sucks, though. :hug:
-
We're not eligible either Rosemary, as they subtract woody areas etc from total, so our hectarage is 0.1 under the min. Same for any grants etc. They've spent hundreds calculating that, to save themselves a few quid.
Easy to get downhearted - we just look on it as less hassle, fewer forms to fill in and fewer regs to negotiate and comply with. Bummer though.
-
After 4 years of form filling ' you MUST fill in this form', with increasingly detailed and irrelevant questions we finally got a 'your too small' response because they went to great pains to overestimate every bit of hard standing to ensure we were 0.1 below the minimum. I wonde FW how many of us are 0.1 under!!
-
Write to your MPs.
-
After 4 years of form filling ' you MUST fill in this form', with increasingly detailed and irrelevant questions we finally got a 'your too small' response because they went to great pains to overestimate every bit of hard standing to ensure we were 0.1 below the minimum. I wonde FW how many of us are 0.1 under!!
Very interesting :thinking: I wonder indeed. And considering how much is doled out to the big boys, well, what a waste of time.
When is a smallholding not a smallholding - when it's not very small, clearly ::)
-
We're getting BPS on some of our land but the paddock we keep the pigs in is excluded from the eligible area because it's 10sq m too small - however, I think there's a fence we can take down to claw back that area ::)
-
After 4 years of form filling ' you MUST fill in this form', with increasingly detailed and irrelevant questions we finally got a 'your too small' response because they went to great pains to overestimate every bit of hard standing to ensure we were 0.1 below the minimum. I wonde FW how many of us are 0.1 under!!
I've just received a letter telling me I'm 0.08 under (actually, the letter doesn't give a figure, but when I asked that's what they've recorded). I'm wondering if I should appeal or not bother.
-
I seriously doubt an area of farmland can be measured accurately to that decimal place. Try appealing and let us know what they come up with. :farmer:
-
(not) Sorry to say We claim nothing, We do as we please, no I don't need a " wildlife corridor" on my borders like my neighbors , to their cost . I'll pay for the planting of the woodlands out of my own pocket, some one close by got a FC grant and was plagued by the boy that came each year to count the trees,check the correct herbicide and beating up was done , no money until deer eaten trees replaced,that took care of the money :D :D
Set aside, dont get me started...... binned.
So , No forms , no measuring the land,counting the buttercups , etc etc. Happy days
-
I seriously doubt an area of farmland can be measured accurately to that decimal place. Try appealing and let us know what they come up with. :farmer:
Yes, they can using GIS. The chappie camw with his little machine.
-
(not) Sorry to say We claim nothing, We do as we please, no I don't need a " wildlife corridor" on my borders like my neighbors , to their cost . I'll pay for the planting of the woodlands out of my own pocket, some one close by got a FC grant and was plagued by the boy that came each year to count the trees,check the correct herbicide and beating up was done , no money until deer eaten trees replaced,that took care of the money :D :D
Set aside, dont get me started...... binned.
So , No forms , no measuring the land,counting the buttercups , etc etc. Happy days
Fine if you can afford to fund improvements from your own capital but these grants are there for a reason. Nice to be in your position but not all of us are.
-
Fine if you can afford to fund improvements from your own capital but these grants are there for a reason. Nice to be in your position but not all of us are.
But you said you earn too much money to qualify? There have to be limits - You could always redirect some of your own money :idea:
I my business If I dont have the money then I dont expand or and I cant replace equipment there's nobody there to throw cash at me.
-
You're assuming that "too much money to qualify" means you earn an actual living wage :innocent:
-
Fine if you can afford to fund improvements from your own capital but these grants are there for a reason. Nice to be in your position but not all of us are.
But you said you earn too much money to qualify? There have to be limits - You could always redirect some of your own money :idea:
I my business If I dont have the money then I dont expand or and I cant replace equipment there's nobody there to throw cash at me.
If I remember right the income limit is pretty low so just because you exceed it it doesn't mean you can afford the improvements.
Whether you agree with the very existence of grants or not the ops (valid) complaint is that they are not distributed fairly. Eg Why is there not an income limit on large landowners who claim hundreds if thousands when there is on small farmers?
-
(not) Sorry to say We claim nothing, We do as we please, no I don't need a " wildlife corridor" on my borders like my neighbors , to their cost . I'll pay for the planting of the woodlands out of my own pocket, some one close by got a FC grant and was plagued by the boy that came each year to count the trees,check the correct herbicide and beating up was done , no money until deer eaten trees replaced,that took care of the money :D :D
Set aside, dont get me started...... binned.
So , No forms , no measuring the land,counting the buttercups , etc etc. Happy days
I don't really recognise that at all.
I have a woodland scheme (admittedly a difficult application process) but I would not have been able to afford it without the grant, they pay an amount annually which covers beating up (even if I am a little out of pocket I am still benefiting from the trees), never been inspected, never been told I have to use herbicide.
I claim Basic Payment (a pitiful amount but it allows a little investment in the land that otherwise would not happen - lime this year). A simple online form that doesn't take long. Never had to measure land (except for the house site), never had to count buttercups, never had to put in a wildlife corridor, don't have to do anything for greening.
I do whatever I please and am pleased to do a little more than I would otherwise be able to do.
If big agribusiness can claim many thousands then why shouldn't I get a few hundreds.
-
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand these schemes exist to enable people to carry out upgrades they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to. So, if there is only a limited pot of money, it's right to prioritise those without other income.
On the other hand, unless you inherit a farm, land is so expensive that you've no way of buying one WITHOUT having a decent income stream from somewhere else, which then stops you from getting the grant.
Tricky..... :-/
-
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand these schemes exist to enable people to carry out upgrades they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to. So, if there is only a limited pot of money, it's right to prioritise those without other income.
On the other hand, unless you inherit a farm, land is so expensive that you've no way of buying one WITHOUT having a decent income stream from somewhere else, which then stops you from getting the grant.
Tricky..... :-/
It's not only right to prioritise - its essential to prioriise. There is always going to be a limited amount in whatever pot & it should go not to the needy but to the MOST needy.
-
(not) Sorry to say We claim nothing, We do as we please, no I don't need a " wildlife corridor" on my borders like my neighbors , to their cost . I'll pay for the planting of the woodlands out of my own pocket, some one close by got a FC grant and was plagued by the boy that came each year to count the trees,check the correct herbicide and beating up was done , no money until deer eaten trees replaced,that took care of the money :D :D
Set aside, dont get me started...... binned.
So , No forms , no measuring the land,counting the buttercups , etc etc. Happy days
Absolutely same here. We had the bloke round a couple of years ago to see about a tree planting grant but a/ he was a supercilious prat, and b/ Im not having some supercilious prat and his beurocrat mates telling me what I can or can't do on my own land. Simply not worth the hassle.
-
It's not only right to prioritise - its essential to prioriise. There is always going to be a limited amount in whatever pot & it should go not to the needy but to the MOST needy.
I disagree, it's not quite that simple. Grant funding should be allocated to where it will have most impact, in terms of the aims of the scheme, not solely based on the 'need' of the applicant.
For example if a small grant will enable someone to extend their enterprise to the point where they can support a new employee, that may well be a better use of the funds than giving the same grant to someone in financial need.
In most cases grant funding is intended to support development - social, economic, and personal - not top up someone's income or target the most 'needy'. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive of course.
-
It's not only right to prioritise - its essential to prioriise. There is always going to be a limited amount in whatever pot & it should go not to the needy but to the MOST needy.
I disagree, it's not quite that simple. Grant funding should be allocated to where it will have most impact, in terms of the aims of the scheme, not solely based on the 'need' of the applicant.
For example if a small grant will enable someone to extend their enterprise to the point where they can support a new employee, that may well be a better use of the funds than giving the same grant to someone in financial need.
In most cases grant funding is intended to support development - social, economic, and personal - not top up someone's income or target the most 'needy'. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive of course.
This is why these schemes need parameters to work to.
It would be impractical and expensive to administer if every application was reviewed in the way you would suggest ( whether thats right or not). This would just mean less money in the pot because it goes to beaurocrats.
If only more money was in the pot rather than being spent on foreign aid eh? :roflanim:
-
Since the grant is only 40% of the cost and it's claimed retrospectively, putting an income bar on it is a double whammy. If you have a low income, you're not likely to be able to fund the 60% / upfront payment.
Plus why just income? If you want to means test, what about savings and investments? Someone could have a low income and £1m in a Panamanian account (I know the scenario is unlikely but it's possible).
I have asked the question at the Perth office as to why the two schemes are different and they don't know eiethr but they're going to ask. If they don't come back with a satisfactory reason, I'll take to to the politicians. Much rhetoric about supporting small farmers - it would be good to see it followed through.
-
I can understand the disappointment and you may feel you have been unjustly dealt with but the parameters are what they are. All grants are the same, you either meet the criteria or you don't. You may not agree with the criteria but you wont change it.
The public needs to get behind farming. Most businesses have to stand on their own two feet.
-
You may not agree with the criteria but you wont change it.
Yeah, I have a less defeatist attitude ;D
-
If you think you have the time and energy to change things then that is up to you and if you manage to change anything I will be the first to say "Well Done".
-
(not) Sorry to say We claim nothing, We do as we please, no I don't need a " wildlife corridor" on my borders like my neighbors , to their cost . I'll pay for the planting of the woodlands out of my own pocket, some one close by got a FC grant and was plagued by the boy that came each year to count the trees,check the correct herbicide and beating up was done , no money until deer eaten trees replaced,that took care of the money :D :D
Set aside, dont get me started...... binned.
So , No forms , no measuring the land,counting the buttercups , etc etc. Happy days
I don't really recognise that at all.
I have a woodland scheme (admittedly a difficult application process) but I would not have been able to afford it without the grant, they pay an amount annually which covers beating up (even if I am a little out of pocket I am still benefiting from the trees), never been inspected, never been told I have to use herbicide.
I claim Basic Payment (a pitiful amount but it allows a little investment in the land that otherwise would not happen - lime this year). A simple online form that doesn't take long. Never had to measure land (except for the house site), never had to count buttercups, never had to put in a wildlife corridor, don't have to do anything for greening.
I do whatever I please and am pleased to do a little more than I would otherwise be able to do.
If big agribusiness can claim many thousands then why shouldn't I get a few hundreds.
Doug applied for his grant in 1989 no online forms then ! He showed me the paperwork, horrendous to say the least . put me off that idea. We planted thousands of trees, (Mrs RTB did most !! ) our choice of stock from 12cm whips to well established woodlands in 27 years home to wildlife and an asset to the croft and firewood galore. At the time we went with out to pay for improvements to the croft ,from acorns mighty oaks grow. All by our own hands and with out hand outs.
-
At the time we went with out to pay for improvements to the croft ,from acorns mighty oaks grow. All by our own hands and with out hand outs.
As do most of us. And how judgemental is that statement about "handouts".
-
If you think you have the time and energy to change things then that is up to you and if you manage to change anything I will be the first to say "Well Done".
Thank goodness some folk do make the time and the energy to try to change things for the better.
-
At the time we went with out to pay for improvements to the croft ,from acorns mighty oaks grow. All by our own hands and with out hand outs.
As do most of us. And how judgemental is that statement about "handouts".
It not meant to be judgemental , I meant it as an expression , considering that the grant monies is you money anyway , taken from taxation .
No offense intended but I apologize if I have offended.
-
At the time we went with out to pay for improvements to the croft ,from acorns mighty oaks grow. All by our own hands and with out hand outs.
As do most of us. And how judgemental is that statement about "handouts".
Haven't we just had a thread about misinterpreting the written word on a forum. You can be offended at anything if you try. :innocent:
-
If you think you have the time and energy to change things then that is up to you and if you manage to change anything I will be the first to say "Well Done".
Thank goodness some folk do make the time and the energy to try to change things for the better.
Yes, thank goodness they do. What is better in this case? That the grant criteria is changed so that you benefit and someone else may not.
This thread started because you weren't happy that someone applied grant criteria to your application and it wasn't approved. We actually don't know your situation, we can only make a judgement on your application if we had all the information about the criteria and your application and frankly that isn't our business.
If you feel your grant wasn't properly assessed against the criteria then yes you should appeal.
-
Did it say what the maximum income was allowed to be on the information pack?
-
If you bothered to read the OP, you'll see that my gripe is around the inequalities between grant schemes.
I fully appreciate that if you draw a line in the sand, someone will always be on the other side of it and unhappy about that.
On my personal circumstances, I think I have identified a solution. Thank you all for your support. I'll invite you all to the barn opening.