[oor wullie]

(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
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.

[Womble]

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..... :-/

[Q]

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.

[hughesy]

(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
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.

[Dan]

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.

[Q]

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? 

[Rosemary]

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.

[harmony]

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.

[Rosemary]

You may not agree with the criteria but you wont change it.

Yeah, I have a less defeatist attitude 

[harmony]

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".

[Rupert the bear]

(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
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.

[Rosemary]

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".

[Rosemary]

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.

[Rupert the bear]

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.

[Q]

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.