LAW&LAND
Welcome…
Alex Robinson Partner and Head of Agriculture
Dates for your Diary
All the events listed below were correct at the time of publication. Please check their websites for the most up-to-date information.
2026
Oxford Farming Conference
7 - 9 January
‘Growing Resilience’, Oxford ofc.org.uk
CropTec 14 – 15 January
NEC, Birmingham Croptecshow.com
LAMMA
After one of the hottest summers on record, there is no visible let-up for the farming industry following confirmation from the Farming Minister, Dame Angela Eagle, that there will be no U-turn on the government’s plans for inheritance tax relief changes. Unwelcome though this news is, the removal of any uncertainty means that farmers can now crack on and plan properly for the future by reviewing their business structures in the light of the new rules.
Likewise, the continuing obfuscation surrounding the government’s plans for environmental schemes has only been partially alleviated by the news that the Countryside Stewardship Mid-Tier agreements, due to expire in December, are being extended by one year. And there is still no definite news about the SFI, other than a vague indication that it might reopen next spring, leaving many farmers in ongoing financial limbo. The government’s approach indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of how the farming cycle works, something that should worry us all.
In this edition of Law & Land, Robert Lee looks at how setting up a Family Investment Company might be the answer for some family farms to ensure that their assets and land are not met with large IHT obligations. This is a complicated area worth considering but only with professional advice.
Helping farmers diversify is never far from our minds and selling land for development is an increasingly viable option as the drive for housebuilding continues unabated. On Page 5, Claire Waring outlines what anyone selling land for development needs to know and in a related topic, Amanjot Sidhu describes the key considerations for landowners granting easements.
Elsewhere, we review the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (which received Royal Assent on 27 October) and the news that the only House of Lords amendment accepted by the Commons related to tenancies for agricultural workers. We also report on another proprietary estoppel case, Armstrong v Armstrong, which is yet another example of how intra-family disputes over inheritance lead to lengthy and costly court proceedings.
Finally, I hope by now that most readers will have heard of the devastating loss of our respected colleague, Neal Patterson. His infectious energy and enthusiasm for farming, for people, and for rugby were an inspiration – as was his passion for Belted Galloways and Massey Fergusons. He is greatly missed by us all.
14 - 15 January
NEC, Birmingham lammashow.com
Low Carbon Agriculture
14 – 15 January
NEC, Birmingham lowcarbonagricultureshow.co.uk
Dairy Tech
4 February
NAEC, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire dairy-tech.uk
Farm Shop and Deli Show
13 – 15 April 2026
NEC, Birmingham farmshopanddelishow.co.uk
Contents
4 Talking Point: How Family Investment Companies can help farmers
5 Spotlight On: Selling land for developmentwhat landowners need to know
6 - 7 Opinion: Will the Supreme Court ruling on Dartmoor extend the right to wild camp?
Legal Focus:
8 - 9 What the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 means for farmer landlords
10 - 11 Easement agreements and landowners
12 - 13 In Court - Armstrong v Armstrong: settling the remedy for a proved proprietary estoppel claim
14 - 15 News Round Up
• Tenant Farming Commissioner appointed
• Farm tenancy review
• Farming Rules for Water (FRfW)
• Strengthening shotgun licensing laws
• Government support: Countryside Stewardship and grants
• Standish v Standish: the sharing principle
• Supermarkets backing British producers
• Food, Farming and Sustainability in Education
How Family Investment Companies can help farmers
Historically, family run farms have benefitted from various tax reliefs that have sheltered them from significant inheritance tax obligations. This changed in Rachel Reeves’ Autumn 2024 budget when she decided to remove APR from agricultural assets (including land) valued at over £1m. As a traditionally asset-heavy sector, the introduction of 20% IHT will present a large financial burden for many inheriting the assets, potentially forcing the breakup and sale of family farms that have been in the same hands for generations. One solution could be a Family Investment Company (FIC), a type of private limited company that could be used to shield farming assets and land from large IHT obligations, meaning they could remain within the family for generations to come.
How do FIC’s work to save IHT liability?
Fundamentally, a FIC operates by holding farming assets within a company structure. Individuals who currently own assets in their personal name will transfer those assets to the FIC. In return, they will be given shareholdings, which will have varying rights and benefits attached to them. The advantage of moving the assets to the FIC is to transfer the IHT liability away from the assets and into shares which can be more easily gifted to family members over an extended period. Gifting shares in this way and capitalising on the annual exemption, reduces the IHT obligation linked to a single individual.
Additional benefits of setting up a FIC
Prior to incorporation, we can tailor each FIC to meet your family’s unique needs by adapting the company’s
Selling land for development –what landowners need to know
We have been advising our farming clients for several decades on how to maximise their financial return from any potential development land they own. Using the right form of agreement to achieve a successful sale is an important part of this process. Here we give a very brief overview of three types of agreement which are commonly used. You can find a more detailed explanation of each on our website.
constitutional documents. Different family members can have varying levels of control and ownership. In practice, this means that senior family members can retain key decision making and oversee day-to-day operations, whilst ensuring a smooth transition of wealth and management across generations.
FICs also provide a more general level of tax efficiency to family farms. Farm profits would be subject to corporation tax (currently 25%) rather than potentially higher rates of personal income tax. This would allow the farm to accumulate and reinvest a greater proportion of its earnings, supporting growth, investment in new agricultural technology and diversification projects. There is also greater control over how proceeds from the farm are distributed within the family.
Families can also benefit from enhanced protection against any personal liabilities that individual members might face, such as those arising from unforeseen events. FICs are particularly effective in shielding assets from risks associated with divorce or insolvency. While the value of a shareholder’s interest in the FIC may be considered in legal proceedings, the underlying assets themselves are generally insulated from direct claims by creditors or former spouses. This separation provides peace of mind and continuity for the family business, even in challenging personal circumstances.
Summary
FICs are a valuable way of ensuring family wealth is cascaded down the generations in a controlled way. Individuals planning to create a FIC need to be very clear on their objectives and try and keep its structure as simple as possible. By thinking long term, focusing on wealth preservation and growth, a FIC can be a practical tool for ensuring the future financial well-being of a family farm for generations to come. Please get in touch if you would like to discuss how a FIC could help secure the future of your family farm. We would be happy to discuss the options available to you.
Robert Lee, Partner and Head of Corporate
Conditional Contract
If you enter into a conditional contract with a potential buyer of your land, that buyer is legally obliged to complete the purchase within a specified timeframe provided that the condition(s) set out in the contract are fulfilled. In most development land contracts, the principal condition is the obtaining of ‘satisfactory’ planning permission to develop the land (either outline or detailed planning permission). The main advantages of a conditional contract to you, as seller, are:
• Obliges the buyer to complete the purchase once the condition(s) are fulfilled.
• Usually provides for a fixed sale price giving financial certainty.
• Provides a date by which the condition(s) must be met, after which you can terminate the contract and remarket the land should you choose to do so.
Call Option Agreement
A call option agreement gives the buyer an option for a specified duration to buy your land for an agreed sum following the grant of planning permission. This means that they are not obliged to buy it but rather that they can choose whether or not to exercise the option to do so. A call option agreement does not give you the same level of certainty as a conditional contract but, like a conditional contract, it does impose the obligation and the cost of obtaining planning permission on the buyer. If the option is exercised and the land sold, you will receive the sale price which may be an agreed fixed price or a price which represents a % of the then market value of the land which will have been significantly uplifted by the grant of planning permission. Advantages of a call option agreement include:
• Being able to charge a deductible, non-refundable financial premium on signing the agreement.
• A stipulation that the option be exercised within a specific period following the grant of planning permission, after which you can terminate the agreement and remarket the land.
Promotion Agreement
A land promotion agreement (sometimes called a planning uplift agreement) allows you to appoint a promoter to obtain planning permission at their cost to develop your land which is then sold to a third party on the open market for a significant uplift. Under a promotion agreement, the promoter typically:
• Accepts all the financial risk and may pay you a (sometimes significant) financial premium to enter the agreement
• Applies for planning permission.
• Markets the property for sale on the open market once planning permission is granted.
From the sale proceeds the promoter is reimbursed their costs incurred (subject to any agreed financial caps) and also receives a % of the net sale proceeds with the balance being payable to you.
Although a promotion agreement does not guarantee that planning permission will be obtained and the land sold, you do retain ownership of the land throughout the process and can continue to use it until it is sold. As with the previous agreements, an expiry date is agreed after which the agreement is capable of termination.
Each agreement has merit depending on your individual circumstances. A conditional contract gives you certainty and usually at a fixed price but relies on the contract conditions being met; a call option often gives you a financial premium at the outset but the developer has a choice rather than an obligation to buy; and under a promotion agreement your interests and those of the promoter are more closely aligned in that both of you want to achieve the most valuable planning permission and the highest possible sale price.
If you have land with development potential (whether long or short term) which you are hoping to realise, please do contact us for specialist advice.
Claire Waring, Partner and Head of Development
Will the Supreme Court ruling on Dartmoor extend the right to wild camp?
What the decision means for landowners, farmers and public access to open countryside in England and Wales
The Supreme Court ruling earlier this year dismissing the attempt by Dartmoor landowners, Mr & Mrs Darwall, to ban wild campers’ access to Dartmoor common land within their Dartmoor estate, has worried many farmers and landowners. Since the Darwalls lost their case, there has been concern that the Court’s ruling would open the door to a widespread extension of the right to wild camp on open access land in England and Wales, something that is being actively promoted by several campaigning organisations. In fact, the ruling only relates to Dartmoor National Park (the only National Park in England where a right to wild camp exists) and has no legal authority elsewhere. However, despite genuine anxiety, any extension of a right to wild camp is very unlikely in the short to medium term.
Legal background: The Darwalls vs Dartmoor National Park Authority
Alexander and Diana Darwall, whose 4000-acre Blachford Manor estate includes Stall Moor, part of the Dartmoor Commons, believed that wild camping was having a negative impact on their farming activities and local wildlife. They brought a claim against the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) arguing that Section 10 (1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 did not confer a right to wild camp. The High Court agreed with them that the Act conferred a right to access to the Commons by foot or by horse but not a right to camp. The DNPA appealed.
The Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that the Darwalls’ interpretation of Section 10 (1) was too narrow. It did confer a right and one that was consistent with the DNPA’s byelaws. The Darwalls appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling. The judges agreed unanimously that the words ‘open-air
recreation’ in Section 10 (1): ‘…the public shall have a right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation…’, referred to a wide range of outdoor activities, including wild camping, and not just walking or riding.
Why are farmers and landowners concerned about wild camping?
Other than Dartmoor National Park, anyone wishing to wild camp in a national park (or elsewhere) must obtain permission from the landowner to do so. Traditionally, wild campers have been drawn from the ranks of the environmentally aware, committed to leaving no trace other than footprints, meaning that landowners in many areas have been happy to give permission. A significant change occurred after Covid restrictions were lifted, encouraging many more visitors to the countryside, many of whom were unfamiliar with the Countryside Code, with a minority indulging in anti-social activity including fly-camping, littering, environmental damage, and livestock disturbance. Given this background, the prospect of extending a right to wild camp makes farmers and landowners understandably nervous.
Could the right to wild camping be extended beyond Dartmoor?
The Open Spaces Society (OSS), the Campaign for National Parks (CNP), and the British Mountaineering Council (BMC) are among several organisations that view this ruling as a potential springboard for the extension of wild camping across all ‘suitable National Parks in England and Wales.’ In fairness, campaigners support responsible wild camping, citing the DNPA’s byelaws and specific Code of Conduct, which wild campers on Dartmoor are obliged to follow, as the correct way to
approach the issue. As the Supreme Court observed, the DNPA has the legal power to protect landowners from problematic camping, a helpful template that could be replicated elsewhere. The CNP is careful to emphasise the need to work closely with national park authorities as well as those who live and work within them, acknowledging that instituting a right to wild camping should not be universal and a trial should be conducted within suitable national parks as part of a proposed roll-out.
Although campaigners may also take heart from those supportive Labour backbenchers who are championing a wider Scottish style right to roam, this is unlikely to cut much ice with the Government. Realistically, given the list of items in its ‘to do’ pile, the chances of this issue rising to the top of the Government’s agenda is very slim. Additionally, the budgetary pressures faced by the national parks means that it is unlikely that any will have the financial resources to invest in an appropriate legal framework needed to regulate a right to wild camp.
A delicate balance exists between protecting property rights and livelihoods while giving the public access to the countryside, and this ruling is unlikely to upset it any time soon. The Court of Appeal’s observation that The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 does not explicitly prohibit wild camping, is seen as a fillip to campaigners. Nonetheless, there is a big leap from an omission in a list of restrictions to a comprehensive right to wild camp. There is no obvious political will, and it is difficult to see this changing during the life of this Parliament.
Alex Robinson, Partner & Head of Agriculture
What the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 means for farmer landlords
The Renters’ Rights Bill was finally granted Royal Assent on 27 October 2025. The new Act includes the only House of Lords amendment to be accepted by the Commons, namely one that relates to agricultural tenancies, something that should interest farmers who let residential properties as part of their diversification strategy. Although the government has promised to give landlords time to prepare for the changes, they have not published a timeline for implementation. The smart money appears to be on spring 2026 for the implementation of key elements such as removing ‘no-fault’ evictions. However, this can only be a guess, and without the benefit of a crystal ball this could be sooner or later.
The main changes affecting rural landlords
The successful House of Lords’ amendment related to the new Ground 5A that enables a landlord to recover possession of a property for the housing of “qualifying” agricultural workers. The amendment expands the new Ground 5A so that landlords will also be able to reclaim the property for a selfemployed worker providing their contract is for a minimum of six months, a move which is more in tune with the realities of agricultural employment.
Landlords can also re-possess the property if it is needed either to house them or close family members, or if the property is to be sold, providing the tenant is afforded the correct notice. If a tenant farmer on an AHA tenancy or FBT is required to give up their tenancy with vacant possession, and their employment ends, then Ground 5A may also allow for repossession of any dwelling that they reside in on a tenancy agreement. However, it is important to note that the Grounds for re-possession as framed in the Act will not apply to tenants under an AHA or FBT tenancy; these types of tenancies remain untouched by the Act.
The main provisions of the Act
The ending of no-fault evictions (Section 21) has dominated the headlines, but there are several other elements that landlords need to be aware of, specifically the nature of the tenancies, rents, and enhanced regulation, including:
Grounds for possession: Landlords can regain possession of their property on mandatory grounds, such as rent arrears, severe criminal behaviour, redevelopment, or if the landlord or a family member wishes to live in the property (for instance returning from abroad) or sell it. Discretionary grounds for possession include persistent rent arrears, deterioration of the property caused by a tenant, a tenant making a false statement, or breaching their tenancy agreement.
End to ASTs: fixed-term tenancies will be abolished. Instead, tenancies will operate on a rolling monthly basis with no end date. Tenants need to give two months’ notice to terminate the agreement.
Rents: Landlords must give tenants notice of their intention to increase the rent. Such increases can only happen annually and must be in line with the market rate. Tenants will have the legal right to challenge ‘unreasonable rent increases’ via the First-tier Tribunal. Inviting tenants to bid above the published rent will be prohibited.
Tenant rights: A landlord can only refuse a tenant’s request to keep a pet on ‘reasonable grounds’ and cannot automatically refuse tenants with children or who are on benefits. A Private Rented Sector Landlord Ombudsman will be appointed to help resolve tenant complaints if landlords have not dealt with them adequately.
Good homes standards: All tenancies will be subject to the Decent Homes Standard. Landlords will be required to deal with serious repair issues quickly under ‘Awaab’s Law’, to prevent harms arising from, say, damp and mould.
What
landlords must prepare for
Landlords must be on top of their administration. Importantly, both they and their properties must be registered on a new database with civil penalties attached if they don’t, including monetary fines from their local authority if they market or let their property before registration. All their compliance records will need to be uploaded to this database. They will also be required to join the Ombudsman tenant redress scheme for which a fee is payable. More generally, landlords should keep detailed records of their tenancies, review their tenancy agreements to reflect how the new notice requirements might apply, their pet policy, and rent and deposit clauses, and make sure the property is in good repair to remain fully compliant with the new rules.
Summary
For rural and farming landlords, complying with the legislation will require more attention to detail given the additional administration and related costs involved. The grounds on which landlords can regain possession of their property are more prescribed than previously, hence the need for meticulous record keeping. There is still a significant amount of detail to be provided but the government has committed to providing a full suite of guidance for both landlords and tenants to help them navigate the changes. Now more than ever, the landlords will want to make sure that they retain a team of professional advisers, including a managing agent and a solicitor to ensure that they are compliant. In the meantime, please contact a member of our property litigation team if you would like help on what these changes mean for you.
Easement agreements and landowners
Although most farmland is probably crossed somewhere by pipes or cables (generally known as service media) belonging to a utility company, the incidence is increasing as more and more agricultural land is either sold for housing development or leased to renewable energy operators. As such, it is the landowner who grants the ‘right’ or easement allowing the service media to traverse his/her land.
Careful scrutiny of the deed of easement is necessary because:
• It grants the utility or infrastructure company permanent access (or until such time the equipment is no longer required) to the service media.
• It is registered with the Land Registry and remains with the land regardless of ownership.
• Utility and infrastructure companies commonly use their own standard deed of easement drafted to address their specific requirements, which often includes restrictions on land use.
Easement strips: impact and access
An easement strip, an area of land typically between 1.5m and 3m on each side of the service media, must be kept free of buildings and other obstructions, including vegetation, for the purpose of inspection, maintenance and repair. In the case of solar developments, the growing of trees, substantial hedges or anything that may overshadow the panels is likely to be prohibited.
Although the utility company has the right to access the easement strip at any time in the event of an emergency, it is possible to negotiate reasonable access outside these circumstances depending on the location or route of the service media. For instance, (other than in an emergency) it is reasonable for the utility provider to work around day-to-day farming activities and give prior notice when they need access.
Who is responsible for damage to the land?
Under the deed of easement, the utility company will have a right to break up the surface of the easement strip to carry out works to the service media, but they will also have an obligation to cause as little damage as possible when exercising such rights. In the event of any damage caused, the deed should require the utility company to make good and to your satisfaction.
In a recent change of approach, utility companies generally prefer to have a choice between making good any damage caused or paying compensation. You need to consider if you are happy to accept compensation, which does give you the advantage of restoring the damaged area to your satisfaction.
Futureproofing: lift & shift
If you own the land adjacent to a potential development site, you may need to be able to adjust the route of the service media to accommodate future development (known as lift and shift). Regardless of whether an easement is granted for the length of the renewable project lease or in perpetuity, remember that it is, in essence, a right to lay the cables along a defined route and thus cannot be altered unilaterally. Therefore, it is prudent to consider incorporating a ‘lift & shift’ provision within the agreement, although this would normally be at your cost. Generally, lift and shift provisions can only be used once.
Third party land
In the absence of the utility company exercising its requisition powers, if the route of the service media crosses third-party land, for instance a neighbouring landowner, you will need to seek their cooperation and agreement to be joined as a party to the deed of easement. However, note that they may charge you a premium for doing so and to consent to the works taking place on their land as well as expecting you to cover their legal and other associated professional fees. You also need to bear in mind that a third party may have their own specific requirements in relation to the deed and, if so, these will be a matter for tripartite negotiation.
Regardless of the service media in question, if you are entering into a deed of easement with a utility or infrastructure company you will need to ensure you understand exactly what you can and cannot do with your land once the deed of easement has been completed. Utility and infrastructure providers will pay reasonable professional fees so you should take advice as early as possible to ensure that you protect your position. Our development and agricultural lawyers have considerable experience in advising landowners on their rights so do please get in touch if you have any questions.
Amanjot Sidhu, Solicitor
In Court
Armstrong v Armstrong
Settling the remedy for a proved proprietary estoppel claim
In November 2024, the High Court listened to the fall-out from a fractured family relationship that had led to a father disinheriting his middle son from receiving a farm he had been promised all his life. The events leading to Richard Armstrong’s disinheritance are familiar: misunderstanding, jealousy, manipulation and stubbornness, all resulting from an inability or unwillingness to sit down and talk things through.
What made this claim particularly interesting was Richard’s decision to claim against his father’s estate on two grounds: proprietary estoppel and, if that should fail, financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family
and Dependants) Act 1975. At the end of the case, the judge, having found Richard to be a more credible witness than his younger brother, Simon, ruled that both his claims succeeded but that remedy under the 1975 Act would only be sought if the proprietary estoppel claim failed on appeal.
Background to the case
Richard Armstrong, the second son of Alan and Margaret Armstrong, discovered after his father’s death that he had been disinherited. This meant that he would not inherit North Cowton farm, which he had been promised all his adult life, nor would he receive any additional financial or housing provision, potentially leaving him and his family destitute. The court case revealed that not only had Richard agreed to pass a substantial inheritance from his mother to his father for tax reasons (with the expectation he would eventually receive this inheritance after his father died), but also that Simon
appeared to have manipulated his father to change his Will shortly before he died, disinheriting Richard, and gifting the farm Richard had been promised to Simon’s son, George. At trial in November 2024 the judge found that Richard had proved both his proprietary estoppel claim and his claim under the 1975 Act on the basis that:
• The promises made to Richard were of sufficient clarity to found a claim of proprietary estoppel
• Richard relied on those promises to his detriment
• It was unconscionable for his father to renege on his promises
• Richard had not received ‘countervailing benefits’
Issues before the remedy hearing
From the additional financial evidence provided prior to the remedy hearing, it transpired that the two farms at the centre of the case, North Cowton (the one promised to Richard) and Allerton Grange (promised to his brother, Simon), were together worth c.£3m, with the total debt liability for both farms standing at c.£2.7m. In court, the argument centred on how the farming business’s debts should be apportioned to each farm. Briefly, Richard argued that an agreement with his father and brother in 2017 meant that he should only be responsible for £625,000 secured on North Cowton, leaving Allerton Grange with £2.08m of debt.
The proprietary estoppel remedy: what was decided
At the remedy hearing, the judge, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Guest v Guest, reinforced the principle that proprietary estoppel is concerned with the ‘undoing of unconscionable conduct’ and ‘not expectation fulfilment or detriment
compensation.’ As such, he rejected Richard’s claim that he should only be responsible for a small proportion of the debts that had accrued to the overall farming business as to do otherwise would be manifestly unfair, potentially making Allerton Grange unviable. Therefore, he ruled that a fair outcome was for Richard to take on North Cowton with an amount of debt in proportion to its value.
Decision relating to the 1975 Act claim
At the original hearing, the judge had ruled that Richard’s 1975 Act claim succeeded because he had proved that he had been financially dependent on Alan, and his Will failed to make reasonable provision for him. At the remedy hearing, the judge considered that, in principle, ‘reasonable provision’ would amount to £650k from Alan’s estate, allowing Richard to buy a suitably sized house and meet his future income needs.
But he noted this would only be relevant if his decision relating to the proprietary estoppel claim was overturned at appeal.
Why the decision could be appealed
This case clearly demonstrates the fact-sensitive nature of proprietary estoppel claims, balancing the need for fairness between family members while ensuring that ‘unconscionable conduct’ is rectified. In acknowledging the fine balancing act this requires, the judge mentioned several times that his decision could be referred to appeal. If it is (and at the time of writing no application has been lodged) the Appeal Court could interpret the available documentary evidence and witness statements differently and conclude that the claim lacks merit.
Because every proprietary estoppel case is unique, this underlines the importance of consulting lawyers who have considerable experience of exploring the options before (and after) a claim is issued. We have dealt with many similar claims and would be happy to discuss your options with you in confidence.
Charlotte Kahrman, Associate Solicitor
Tenant Farming Commissioner appointed
Alan Laidlaw, a Harper Adams’ alumnus and chartered rural surveyor with over 25 years’ experience in the sector including at the Crown Estate, has been appointed England’s first Tenant Farming Commissioner. His brief is to provide an impartial point of contact for tenants, landlords and advisers; strengthen relationships and increase collaboration; and promote the standards set out in the Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Code of Practice. He will also investigate complaints, track trends, offer guidance, and report regularly on tenant-landlord relations. You can read more about Alan at www.gov.uk/government/news/new-commissionerto-champion-tenant-farmers-across-england.
Strengthening shotgun licensing laws
Earlier this year the government announced its intention to align the regulations governing firearms and shotguns. In August they announced that, from immediate effect, the number of references required for shotgun applications would be increased from one to two. This means that every applicant will need two referees whom they have known well for at least two years to give them a character reference. Police will also be expected to carry out additional background checks into applicants’ histories, in particular if there is any record of domestic abuse or other violence that would render them unsuitable to have a shotgun licence.
Farming Rules for Water (FRfW)
Defra has updated its guidance governing the Environment Agency’s (EA) approach to enforcing the farming rules for water. The EA’s focus should be on giving advice and guidance before enforcement action, including directing land managers towards grants and schemes like the Catchment Sensitive Farming partnership. It remains the responsibility of land managers to manage the risk of agricultural diffuse pollution, including the use of green cover as a preventative measure. The EA is encouraged to consider individual circumstances before deciding on an appropriate course of action and civil or criminal sanctions will only be considered if guidance and warnings are not heeded.
Government support: Countryside Stewardship and grants
Food, Farming and Sustainability in Education
The first roundtable of its type was held in the Houses of Parliament in September at which various representatives of the food, farming and education sectors met to discuss how to incorporate food, farming and sustainability into the curriculum. The impetus for the initiative is to teach children the ‘full story of food; where it comes from, how it’s grown, and how to cook it.’ A key discussion was how to integrate the topic within other subjects including history, geography, biology and maths around the themes of reconnection, regeneration, and resilience.
Supermarkets backing British producers
Standish v Standish: the sharing principle
This recent divorce case that considered the difference between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, and the circumstances under which the latter morph into the former (the process of ‘matrimonialisation’), is of particular interest to farming families. The court ruled that once an asset becomes ‘matrimonialised’ it becomes subject to the sharing principle in a divorce, regardless of the asset owner’s original intention. This needs to be considered when gifting farming assets to children – even if the asset remains in one spouse’s name it doesn’t necessarily prevent it from becoming ‘matrimonialised.’ This case underlines the need for professional advice when reviewing wills, partnerships or other agreements affecting the long-term future of the farming business. It also makes a strong case for pre-nuptial agreements, which although not legally binding, are generally taken into account, making them a valuable tool for protecting farming assets.
With Government plans for supporting sustainable farming remaining opaque, some comfort can be taken from the announcement in October that Countryside Stewardship Mid-Tier 2021 agreements due to end on 31 December 2025 will be extended by one year. The Government is still reviewing the Sustainable Farming Incentive and plans to ‘publish information on the next iteration…in due course.’ In other news, Defra has announced the awarding of Farming Equipment and Technology grants to 8000 successful applicants who have until 31 March 2026 to claim their payment.
M&S launched its ‘Plan for Farming’ in September, a five-year commitment to British farming in which it outlines its direct support for farmers, including lending its lobbying weight to call for government action to help farmers meet the challenges they face, and to increase the proportion of food eaten in Britain that is UK-grown. Separately, Waitrose announced that from 2027 all its own-label pork would be free-range and British and that it is committed to supporting ‘more than 2000 of its British farmers to move to nature-friendly practices’, including investing £7m in sustainable farming initiatives.
Following the Rock Review, the Law Commission has announced a review of agricultural tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancy Act 1995 (which introduced the Farm Business Tenancy). The review will consider if tenant farmers have enough security of tenure under the current legal framework to encourage investment and remain viable. It will also consider if the framework gives landlords sufficient confidence to let land to new entrants to farming. It will also look at any legislative barriers that prevent tenant farmers from diversifying or adopting more sustainable farming practices, whether it helps or hinders more collaboration between tenants and landlords, and whether the law creates more bureaucracy for farmers.
Wye Valley