|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46249
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
 |
Ty Gwyn
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter
|
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 16002
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 28, 23 1:53 pm Post subject: |
 
|
Definitely. It is even worse for forestry, which will also come under the same rules; ELMS, at least, this year, next year, sometime, never. The only plus is that forestry is long term, so the crop planned will have to have a change of use several times before harvest.
When the Forestry Commission ran the forestry schemes it worked very well. There was advice from people that generally knew what they were talking about, help with forms, which could be on paper or online and you could tell them what you wanted to do, and look back yourself to see what you had planned. Now it is all numbers and tick boxes, and the stuff they send gives no idea what is permissible. Add to that the Rural Payments Agency insistence on land measurement to 3 decimal places of a hectare, and it means a lot of arithmetic at the best. |
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|
View Latest Posts