Historic Farm Buildings Full

8/13/2019 Historic Farm Buildings Full

1/134

Historic farmbuildings:Constructing the evidence base

Peter Gaskell and Stephen Owen


2/134

Historic farm buildings:Constructing the evidence base

Peter Gaskell and Stephen Owen


3/134


4/134

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

English Heritage and the Countryside Agencycommissioned the project on which this monographis based. We are par ticularly grateful to the ProjectManagement Group that supervised the project Stephen Trow, Jeremy Lake and Kathy Perrin from EnglishHeritage, and Andr Berry and Carol Somper from the

Countryside Agency for their support and guidance.

We are indebted also to the many organisations andindividuals who par ticipated in the research. In particular,we should like to thank all the local authority officerswho provided information and the staff who diligentlycompleted the forms for the planning history survey;Government Agencies, professional organisations andvoluntary bodies who agreed to be interviewed; andthe English Heritage farm buildings panel who providedinsights on various aspects of the research. We should

also like to thank the Planning Officers Society and localauthority officers who assisted in the development of the

planning history survey methodology. Finally, we shouldlike to thank the staff at the Images of England projectand the National Monuments Record in Swindon fortheir help and assistance with the photographic survey.

The research project was undertaken by the Countryside

and Community Research Unit at the University ofGloucestershire. The research team, led by Peter Gaskell,comprised Michael Clark, Nigel Curry, Jennifer Deadman,Philip Johnson, James Kirwan, Nick Lewis, Jane Mills,Stephen Owen, Carl Sandford, Becky Stickland, EmilyWhite and Nick Wright. Bob Ford of the University ofBirmingham provided specialist assistance on the samplingand statistical analysis components of the project.

Source:Images of England Dale Venn LRPS

1


5/134

2


6/134

Traditional farm buildings are amongst the mostubiquitous of historic building types in the countryside.They are fundamental to its sense of place, its localdistinctiveness and its historic interest. They also representa major economic asset in terms of their capacity toaccommodate new uses in buildings, which, by definition,are in keeping with local countr yside character.

Arguably, the restructuring of the farming industry andother processes taking place in the countryside meanthat traditional farm buildings are more susceptibleto change now and in the future than any othercomparable group of historic structures. This process ofchange provides both potential threats to the historicinterest of these buildings and real opportunities to givethem renewed life in the 21st century.

In 2002, the Countryside Agency and English Heritagesponsored a landmark conference, Rural Regeneration:

A Sustainable Future for Farm Buildings, organised bythe Historic Farm Buildings Group, which looked at

the current state of the building stock and its potentialfor the future. The main theme that emerged from theconference was that, despite the undoubted historic,scenic and economic importance of the historic farmbuilding stock, there is a remarkable lack of basicinformation on its size, character, condition and trajectoryof change. Without such basic information, informed andsensitive management of change and effective targeting ofscarce resources will not be possible.

This monograph, describing work commissioned fromthe University of Gloucestershire by the two agencies, isa first step towards addressing this information deficit. Farmore remains to be done.

English Heritage and Natural England, as successor to thelandscape, access and recreation responsibilities of theCountryside Agency, will continue to work together andwith a wide range of other partners, to ensure that the

traditional farm buildings of England make as important acontribution to the future as they have done to the past.

PREFACE BY ENGLISH HERITAGE AND

THE COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY

Source:Images of England Mr Clive Read LRPS

3


7/134

Historic farm buildings are an integral part of theagricultural landscape of England and an importantcultural and economic resource. Some continue to playa par t in agricultural production and, increasingly, theyhave a role in farm diversification as places to live andwork. However, they are also a threatened resource.

Many have been poorly converted, to the detriment oftheir historic character and interest. Many more are nolonger appropriate for their original purpose and, withinthe context of a changing rural economy, are becomingredundant and vulnerable to neglect and subsequentdemolition. An understanding of the character andcondition of the resource, as well as the forces thatdrive change in historic farm buildings, is vital if informeddecisions are to be made about their future.

In 2001 English Heritage and the Countr yside Agency

commissioned the Countryside & Community ResearchUnit to under take research into the nature, condition and

management of English historic farmsteads. The overallaims of the research were:

to provide baseline data on the character andmanagement of, and threats to, listed agriculturalbuildings in rural areas;

to determine the factors that precipitate change inmanagement of the historic farm building resource.

To fulfil these aims an exhaustive range of researchmethods was used, combining desk study with theanalysis of empirical information from databases orcollected via questionnaires, and telephone and personalinterviews.

Working agricultural buildings, as distinct fromfarmhouses, comprise the largest category of listed

buildings considered to be at risk. They tend to be inworse condition than other types of building. Over half

ABSTRACT

Source:Countryside Agency Anne Katrin Purkiss

4


8/134

the agricultural list entries have been subject to planningapplications since 1980 and at least one in five list entrieswith working farmstead buildings has had permissionfor a change of use, mainly into permanent dwellings.Conversion for employment and businesses is far lesscommon.

Conversion to alternative uses can have a significantadverse impact on the character and landscape settingof a working farmstead building. Pressure for conversioncomes mainly from increased demand for dwellings asrural populations rise and communications improve.This has coincided with a corresponding change inGovernment planning policy towards encouragingeconomic, sustainable development in rural areas, partlyto counteract the decline of agriculture. These drivers arelikely to persist into the future and further increase thepace at which conversion is taking place.

Local authorities vary greatly in their policy towardshistoric working farmstead buildings. Just over half offergrants for the upkeep of mainly listed buildings, butonly very small sums are available. Fewer than half of allauthorities monitor changes to these buildings. Fewerthan half of the Local Plans examined explicitly recognisethe contribution of farm buildings to the historicenvironment, and the majority make no reference toprotecting historic character when considering re-use.Plans at all spatial levels indicate a strong preference foremployment-related rather than residential use. This isusually justified as causing less damage to the characterof buildings and providing greater economic benefits.The planning system generally resists new developmentin rural areas and this can redirect the pressure fordevelopment onto existing rural buildings, includingfarmsteads.

Few stakeholders feel that local planning policiessatisfactorily integrate the two main objectives of nationalplanning policy with regard to historic farm buildings:fostering economic re-use and conserving a valuable

historic asset. This is attributed to a lack of guidance onthe reconciliation of these objectives. National policy isalso thought to be insufficiently sensitive to differencesbetween places, economic circumstances and differentbuildings. While national policy has favoured re-use ofworking farmstead buildings for employment purposes,conversions are almost always to dwellings, for whichthe demand is greatest and profits may be highest. Manylocal authority conservation officers feel that residentialconversions are often of poor quality and that nationalpolicy allows them to take place too easily. Applicants

for permission for change of use, though, feel this resultsfrom poor design rather than the intrinsic nature of

residential conversion; they believe national policy is toorestrictive.

In terms of best practice in the conversion of workingfarmstead buildings, strong but flexible planning policiesenable adaptation to individual circumstances within afirm framework. Architects are deemed to be the key

players, while a sympathetic owner is considered almostas important. Pre-application consultation is criticalin determining the success of a scheme; it improvesrelationships between participants and results in lownumbers of planning permission refusals. Other importantfactors include the use and availability of local materialsand traditional methods, the availability of good-qualityplanning guidance and a good working relationshipbetween the local planning authority and the applicant.

5


9/134

Les fermes traditionnelles sont une partie intgrante dupaysage agricole anglais et une ressource culturelle etconomique importante. Certaines dentre elles sontencore utilises dans la production agricole et, de plus enplus, elles ont un rle dans la diversification des fonctionsde la ferme, et sont des btiments vivre et travailler.Mais elles sont en mme temps une ressource menace.

Beaucoup dentre elles ont t mal transformes, audtriment de leur caractre et de leur intrt historique.Et davantage dentre elles ne sont plus appropries pourleur rle initial et, dans le contexte dune conomie ruralechangeante, elles nont plus dutilit et sont victimes de langligence et finissent par tre dmolies. Il est essentielde comprendre la nature et ltat de ces ressources etles forces qui sont la cause du changement des fermestraditionnelles, si nous voulons prendre des dcisionspour leur avenir.

En 2001, English Heritage et lagence Countrysideont mandat le service de recherche Countryside &

Community de mener des recherches sur la nature, ltatet la gestion des petites fermes traditionnelles anglaises.Les objectifs gnraux de la recherche taient :

fournir des donnes de base sur le caractre et lagestion des btiments agricoles rpertoris dans lessecteurs ruraux et les menaces qui les guettent ;

dterminer les facteurs qui acclrent le changementdans la gestion des ressources des fermestraditionnelles.

Une gamme varie de mthodes de recherche a tutilise pour raliser ces objectifs ; les tudes scientifiquesont t combines avec lanalyse des informationsempiriques obtenues des bases de donnes ourassembles par lintermdiaire des questionnaires et desentretiens tlphoniques et personnels.

Les btiments agricoles utilitaires, distincts des fermes,comptent le plus grand nombre de btiments rpertoris

RESUME

Source:Countryside & Community Research Unit Peter Gaskell

6


10/134

considrs en danger. Ils sont en gnral en plus mauvaistat que les autres types de btiments. Plus de la moitides btiments agricoles rpertoris ont t sujets despermis de construire depuis 1980 et au moins un surcinq de ceux ayant des btiments utilitaires a eu uneautorisation de changement dutilisation, principalementpour devenir des habitations permanentes. Latransformation dans le but de dvelopper des activitsconomiques est nettement plus rare.

La transformation dun btiment utilitaire dunepetite ferme pour dautres utilisations, peut avoirun impact ngatif significatif sur le caractre et pourlenvironnement. Laugmentation du nombre de cetype de transformation dcoule principalement de lademande accrue de logements, tant donn que lespopulations rurales augmentent et que la communicationsest amliore. Cela concide avec un changement de

la politique de planification du gouvernement, qui vise encourager le dveloppement conomique durabledans les secteurs ruraux, pour contrecarrer en partiele dclin de lagriculture. Ces facteurs persisteront lavenir et ils continueront augmenter la vitesse de cestransformations.

La politique des autorits locales vis--vis lesbtiments utilitaires des fermes traditionnelles varieconsidrablement. Un peu plus de la moiti dentreelles offrent des primes, principalement pour lentretiendes btiments rpertoris, mais les sommes disponiblessont trs rduites. Moins de la moiti de ces autoritssupervisent les changements apports ces btiments.Moins de la moiti des plans locaux examinsreconnaissent explicitement la contribution des btimentsde ferme lenvironnement historique, et la majoritdentre eux ne font aucune rfrence la protectiondu caractre historique dans le cas des transformationspour la reconversion de ces btiments. A tous lesniveaux spatiaux, les plans indiquent une for te prfrencepour lusage li au travail, plutt que pour lutilisationrsidentielle. Cela se justifie en gnral par le fait que

ce type de transformation affecte moins le caractredes btiments et fournit de plus grands avantagesconomiques. Le systme de planification sopposegnralement la construction de nouveaux btimentsdans les zones rurales, ce qui peut rorienter la pressionsur le dveloppement des btiments ruraux existants, ycompris les fermes.

Peu des personnes concernes estiment que lespolitiques locales de planification intgrent dunemanire satisfaisante les deux objectifs principaux de la

politique nationale de planification en ce qui concerneles btiments des fermes traditionnelles : stimuler la

rutilisation conomique, et conserver leur valeurhistorique. Cela est caus par un manque de conseilssur la rconciliation de ces objectifs. La politiquenationale est galement juge ne pas tre assez sensibleaux diffrences entre les rgions, entre les conditionsconomiques et entre les diffrents btiments. Alorsque la politique nationale a favoris la rutilisation desbtiments utilitaires de ferme pour lemploi et le travail,les travaux visent presque toujours la transformation enhabitations, pour lesquels la demande est plus grandeet les bnfices peuvent tre plus levs. Beaucoup defonctionnaires des autorits locales responsables dela conservation estiment que les transformations enhabitation sont souvent de qualit infrieure et que lapolitique nationale accepte trop facilement ce type detransformation. Cependant, les demandeurs de permispour les changements dutilisation, dclarent que la causeen est le manque de travail de conception plutt que

la nature intrinsque de la conversion rsidentielle ; ilsestiment que la politique nationale est trop restrictive.

En termes de pratique, pour la conversion des btimentsutilitaires de ferme, une planification exacte mais flexiblepermet ladaptation aux conditions individuelles, dans uncadre ferme. Les architectes sont rputs tre les acteursprincipaux, alors quun propritaire bien sympathique estconsidr presque aussi important. La consultation de pr-candidature est essentielle pour la russite dunprojet ; elle amliore les rapports entre les participants

et diminue le nombre des refus de permis de construire.Dautres facteurs importants sont lutilisation et ladisponibilit des matriaux locaux et des mthodestraditionnelles, la disponibilit des conseils de bonnequalit sur la construction et les bonnes relations detravail entre lautorit locale et le demandeur de permis.

7


11/134

Historische Bauernhfe sind ein fester Bestandteil desenglischen Landschaftsbildes und eine wichtige kulturelleund konomische Ressource. Einige von ihnen spielenauch weiterhin eine Rolle in der landwirtschaftlichenProduktion und immer hufiger in der Erweiterung desBauernhofes als Platz zum Leben und Arbeiten. Sie sind

jedoch eine bedrohte Ressource. Viele wurden schlechtumgewandelt, sehr zum Schaden fr ihren historischenCharakter und Bedeutung. Viele sind nicht lnger fr ihrenursprnglichen Verwendungszweck geeignet, werden ineiner sich verndernden lndlichen Wirtschaft berflssigund sind in Gefahr, vernachlssigt und schlielichabgerissen zu werden. Fr intelligente Entscheidungen imHinblick auf die Zukunft ist es notwendig, ein Verstndnisfr Eigenart und Verfassung dieser Ressource zu gewinnenund auch fr die Krfte, die Vernderungen fr historischeBauernhfe vorantreiben.

Die Countryside & Community Research Unit* wurde2001 von der English Heritage and the Countryside

Agency** damit beauftragt, die Natur, Verfassung undVerwaltung von historischen englischen Bauernhfenzu erforschen. Die bergreifenden Ziele der Forschungwaren:

Basis-Daten ber Eigenart und Verwaltung von, sowieBedrohungen fr, aufgelistete landwir tschaftliche

Gebude in lndlichen Gegenden zu gewinnen,

Faktoren zu bestimmen, die Vernderungen in derVerwaltung der historischen Bauernhofressourcenherbeifhren.

Um diese Ziele zu erreichen, wurde eine breitePalette von Forschungsmethoden eingesetzt, dieSchreibtischstudien mit der Analyse empirischerInformationen aus Datenbanken oder Fragebgen, sowieTelefon- und persnlichen Interviews, verband.

Landwirtschaftliche Arbeitsgebude, im Unterschiedzu Bauernhfen, bilden die grte Kategorie der

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG


8


12/134

* Landschafts- & Gemeinden-Forschungseinheit (Anm. d. bers.)** Englische Erbe- und Landschaftsagentur (Anm. d. bers.)

aufgelisteten Gebude die als bedroht eingestuftwerden. Sie sind fr gewhnlich in schlechtererVerfassung als andere Gebudear ten. Mehr alsdie Hlfte der landwirtschaftlichen Listeneintrgewurden seit 1980 Anwendungsplnen unterworfenund mindestens einer von fnft Listeneintrgen mitfunktionierenden Bauernhofgebuden hat die Erlaubnisfr eine Umwandlung der Benutzung, hauptschlich inWohngebude erhalten. Die Umwandlung in andereArbeits- und Geschftsgebude ist weit wenigerverbreitet.

Die Umwandlung fr alternative Nutzung kann einenbetrchtlichen nachteiligen Einfluss auf die Verfassungund Landschaftsumfeld von funktionierendenBauernhfe haben. Der Druck zur Umwandlungentsteht hauptschlich aus dem erhhten Bedarf andWohngebuden, die lndliche Bevlkerung wchst und

der Kommunikationsbereich verbessert wird.Dies ging einher mit einem entsprechenden Wechselseitens der Regierungsstrategie in bezug auf dieFrderung konomischer, zukunftsfhiger Entwicklung inlndlichen Gegenden, teils um dem Rckgang

der Landwirtschaft entgegenzuwirken. Diese Krftewerden sicherlich auch in Zukunft wirken und das Tempoverstrken, mit dem Umwandlungen vorangetriebenwerden.

Die rtlichen Behrden unterscheiden sich gewaltigvoneinander bezglich ihrer Strategie bei historischen,funktionierenden Bauerhfe. Etwas ber die Hlftebewilligt Zuschsse fr die Aufrechterhaltung von,hauptschlich eingetragenen, Gebuden. Es stehenjedoch nur wenige Mittel zur Verfgung. Weniger alsdie Hlfte aller Behrden kontrollieren Vernderungenbei diesen Gebuden. Weniger als die Hlfte deruntersuchten lokalen Plne erkennen ausdrcklich denBeitrag von Bauernhfen zur historischen Umgebung an,und die Mehrzahl der Plne zeigt keine Absichten, denhistorischen Charakter bei der Erwgung einer neuenVerwendung zu erhalten. Die Plne auf allen rumlichenEbenen zeigen eine starke Bevorzugung der Nutzungals Arbeitsplatzraum statt als Wohnraum. Dies wird frgewhnlich damit begrndet, dass es der Beschaffenheitder Gebude weniger schadet und grerenwirtschaftlichen Nutzen bietet. Die Planung stellt sichim allgemeinen gegen neue Entwicklung in lndlichenGegenden und dies kann den Druck zur Entwicklung aufbestehende lndliche Gebude, inklusive der Bauernhfe,bertragen.

Wenige Interessengruppen haben das Gefhl, dass diertliche Planung die beiden Hauptanliegen der nationalenPlanungspolitik in bezug auf historische Bauernhfe:Frderung von konomischer Neu-Nutzung und dieErhaltung von wertvollen historischen Gtern, erfolgreichintegrieren. Dies wird dem Mangel an Fhrung bei derAbstimmung dieser Ziele zugeschrieben. Auch wirddie nationale Politik als zu wenig sensibel gegenberden Unterschieden in rtlichkeiten, wirtschaftlichenUnterschieden und verschiedenen Gebuden erachtet.Whrend die nationale Strategie die Neu-Nutzung frArbeitspltze bevorzugt, werden die meisten dennochfast immer zu Wohngebuden umgewandelt, dievermehrt gebraucht werden und eintrglicher seinknnen. Viele lokale Erhaltungsbeamte haben das Gefhl,dass Wohnumwandlungen hufig schlecht ausgefhrtwerden und von nationalen Stellen zu einfach bewilligtwerden. Die Antragsteller fr Umwandlungsbewilligung

glauben jedoch, dass dies eher auf schlechte Entwrfezurckzufhren als auf die eigentliche Besonderheitbei der Umwandlung zu Wohngebuden; sie halten dienationale Strategie fr zu einschrnkend.

In bezug auf das beste Verfahren bei der Umwandlungvon funktionierenden Bauernhofgebuden, gestattenstarke aber dennoch flexible Plne eine Anpassung anindividuelle Bedingungen innerhalb eines festen Rahmens.Architekten werden als hauptschliche Leistungstrgerbetrachtet, obwohl ein wohlwollender Besitzer als

ebenso wichtig erachtet wird. Die Beratung vor derAntragstellung ist enorm wichtig, um den Erfolg einesEntwurfes einzuschtzen; die Beziehung der Beteiligtenwird verbessert und daraus resultieren wenigerAblehnungen. Andere wichtige Faktoren sind Einsatz undVerfgbarkeit von lokalen Materialien und traditionellenMethoden, sowie die Verfgbarkeit qualitativerPlanungsberatung und gute Arbeitsbeziehungen zwischenden lokalen Behrden und dem Antragsteller.

9


13/134


10


14/134

Page

LIST OF TABLES 12LIST OF FIGURES 13

1 INTRODUCTION: THE RESEARCH PROJECT 14KEY POINTS 14BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH 15AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT 17DEFINING THE HISTORIC FARMSTEAD 17RESEARCH METHODS ADOPTED 18

2 HISTORIC FARM BUILDINGS AND THE DRIVERS OF CHANGE 20KEY POINTS 20INTRODUCTION 21CHANGING RURAL ECONOMIES 22RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL POLICY 29RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN RURAL PLANNING POLICY 34

REFORM OF THE PLANNING SYSTEM 37

3 THE CHARACTER OF LISTED AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS 40KEY POINTS 41INTRODUCTION 42INTERPRETING THE STATUTORY LISTS 43USING THE ENGLISH HERITAGE LISTED BUILDING SYSTEM 45NATIONAL OVERVIEW OF THE LISTED BUILDING RESOURCE 45ANALYSING THE AGRICULTURAL BUILDING LIST ENTRIES 46SAMPLING THE LISTED BUILDING SYSTEM TO DETERMINE FUNCTION 49

4 LISTED AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS AND THE PRESSURES FOR CHANGE 52KEY POINTS 53

INTRODUCTION 54BUILDINGS AT RISK SURVEYS 54COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY CONSERVATION DATABASE 60THE PLANNING HISTORY SURVEY 61THE PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY 69EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE 75

5 HISTORIC FARM BUILDINGS AND THE PLANNING SYSTEM 80KEY POINTS 81INTRODUCTION 82ANALYSIS OF PLANNING POLICIES 82LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES AND THE MANAGEMENT OF HISTORIC FARM BUILDINGS 85EVALUATION OF PLANNING POLICIES 89PLANNING GAIN AND WHOLE FARM PLANS 94BEST PRACTICE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF HISTORIC FARM BUILDINGS 95

6 CONCLUSIONS 102THE LISTED AGRICULTURAL BUILDING RESOURCE 103LISTED AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS AND THE PRESSURES FOR CHANGE 103HISTORIC FARM BUILDINGS AND THE PLANNING SYSTEM 104BEST PRACTICE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF HISTORIC FARM BUILDINGS 105

APPENDIX 1 106LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES SELECTED FOR STUDY

NOTES 114UNDERSTANDING THE DOCUMENT 116REFERENCES 120

INDEX 126

CONTENTS

11


15/134

Table 1 Management options for historic farm buildings

Table 2 Farm-level responses to economic and social pressuresTable 3 Planned RDR expenditure in England, 200006

Table 4 Number of listed building entries by building category

Table 5 Regional distribution of agricultural building list entries (Data for 224 LPAs)

Table 6 Strengths and weaknesses of the data sources

Table 7 Structural condition by building type

Table 8 Potential use by building type

Table 9 English Heritage BAR risk and priority categories

Table 10 Structural condition by building type for local authority BAR records

Table 11 Degree of risk by building type for local authority BAR recordsTable 12 Priority category by building type for local authority BAR records

Table 13 National estimate of buildings at risk in 199091 by building type

Table 14 LBC application association with list entry by list entry function

Table 15 Type of work proposed by list entry function

Table 16 Current and proposed use for working farmstead list entries

Table 17 Proportion of agricultural building list entries subject to LBC applications, 19802001

Table 18 Type of planning consent by rurality, 19802001

Table 19 Previous and proposed use

Table 20 Change of use according to previous use

Table 21 Change of use according to proposed use

Table 22 Regional distribution of listed agricultural building photographs

Table 23 Accelerated National Resurvey (198288): Visible change of use by farmstead function

Table 24 Images of England (19992003): Roof condition by listed farmstead building type

Table 25 Images of England (19992003): Visible change of use by listed farmstead building type

Table 26 Change in wall condition by listed farmstead building type

Table 27 Change in roof condition by listed farmstead building type

Table 28 Visible change of use by listed farmstead building type

Table 29 Management of listed agricultural buildings by rurality

Table 30 Hierarchy of case study policies analysedTable 31 Local Plan policies for the re-use of rural buildings

Table 32 Local Plan criteria for the re-use of rural buildings

Table 33 Known start dates for BAR registers

Table 34 Number of planning applications received for the re-use of historic farm buildings, 2000

Table 35 Perceptions of problems resulting from loss or dereliction due to redundancy

Table 36 Perceptions of problems resulting from loss or dereliction due to redundancy by region

Table 37 Case-study LPAs: Application of planning policies

Table 38 Case-study LPAs: Evaluation of planning policies

Table 39 Case-study LPAs: Successful re-use outcomes

LIST OF TABLES

12


16/134

Figure 1 Change in the number and average size of holdings in the UK, 19752000

Figure 2 Change in the agricultural labour force and average number of hectares per Annual Work Unit in the UK,

19752000

Figure 3 Agricultural industry income trends in the UK (real terms at 2003 prices), 19732003

Figure 4 Proportion of farms purchased by lifestyle buyers, 19922003

Figure 5 Changes to agricultural businesses in the recent past and near future

Figure 6 Example of a list entry showing header information and list description

Figure 7 List entry comprising a farmyard complex

Figure 8 Distribution of listed building entries by region

Figure 9 Year of listing for agricultural building entries

Figure 10 Functions contained within agricultural list entries

Figure 11 Proportion of list entries with different farmstead functions

Figure 12 Types of buildings at risk on local authority registers

Figure 13 Type of building subject to LBC applications for total or partial demolition, 19982000

Figure 14 Trends in annual planning applications submitted in England compared with planning permissions received

for agricultural building list entries, 19802001

Figure 15 Trends in Total Farm Income compared with planning permissions received for agricultural building listentries, 19802001

Figure 16 Trends in planning permissions received for agricultural building list entries by rurality, 19802001

Figure 17 Type of listed farmstead building in England and by region

Figure 18 Listed farmstead building construction techniques in England and by region

Figure 19 Images of England (19992003): Visible change of use of listed working farmstead buildings in England andby region

Figure 20 Change in the condition and use of listed working farmstead buildings

Figure 21 Visible change of use of listed working farmstead buildings in England and by region

Figure 22 Current use of traditional farm buildings in disrepair in England and by region

LIST OF FIGURES

13


17/134

Historic farm buildings in England comprise a valuedhistoric resource that has an important role in thefuture of the countryside, but this resource is underthreat from the effects of economic, social andpolicy change.

More information and understanding of thehistoric farm building resource is needed so thatGovernment, agencies and individuals can respondeffectively to these processes of change.

The research on which this monograph is basedaimed:

to provide baseline data on the character andmanagement and threats to listed agriculturalbuildings in rural and urban fringe areas;

to determine the factors that precipitate changein the historic building resource.

The definition of historic farm buildings was clarifiedto provide a sound basis for the research.

The research adopted a comprehensive rangeof research methods, combining desk study, thecollection and analysis of empirical data, and

qualitative questionnaires and interviews withrepresentatives of all relevant stakeholders,including a majority of Englands rural local planningauthorities.

1

INTRODUCTION: THE RESEARCH PROJECT

KEY POINTS

Source:Images of England Mr Alan Earle

14


18/134

BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH

The value of the resource

Historic farm buildings are by far the most numeroustype of historic structure in the countryside. Theyare a fundamental and ubiquitous feature in the rural

environment and help to define its character and historicinterest and provide an important contribution to a senseof place for rural communities and visitors alike.As part of the fabric of our finest landscapes, thesebuildings provide a substantive asset for the touristindustry, which is now a mainstay of many ruraleconomies, albeit one that is difficult to define andquantify. They also provide a valuable resource for thefuture diversification of the farming industry and forwider rural development initiatives. In addition, thephysical evidence of farm buildings helps us understand

how earlier generations responded to local conditionsand materials, as well as the market place, in a waythat written history cannot, reflecting patterns oflandownership and the social and economic developmentof regions. In their myriad forms and methods ofconstruction, they survive as repositories of the craftsand skills associated with local building materials andtechniques. They also illustrate graphically the way thatfarming practices and technologies developed over timeto meet changing circumstances, including the effects ofwar and peace, surpluses and shor tages, new markets and

changing patterns of consumption.

The drivers of change

Since the 1940s the pace of change affecting historic farmbuildings has accelerated at an alarming rate. Structuraland technological change in agriculture, the problemof long-term decline in farm incomes, the demand toconvert historic farm buildings into residences and workplaces and the effect of national and European policiesare all very important factors.

A key feature of Government response to the structuraldecline of the agricultural industry is to encourageand facilitate the diversification of agricultural incomesto reduce the dependence of farming families onconventional crop and livestock enterprises (Defra2002a). In particular, the conversion and re-use ofhistoric farm buildings has been identified as a significantopportunity for farmers to diversify their incomes. It hasbeen suggested by the Cabinet Office Performance andInnovation Unit (PIU) among others that there should

be a relaxation in planning regulations pertaining to theconversion of farm buildings (PIU 1999).

The Rural White Paper Our Countryside: The Future AFair Deal for Rural England(DETR 2000) advances furtherarguments that the historic farm building resource is likelyto be subject to increased development pressures. To alarge degree, it promotes the conversion to economicallyviable new uses of historic farm buildings through a rangeof direct and indirect measures. Government is awarethat surplus farm buildings can provide accommodationfor diversified businesses and is determined that theplanning system should be sufficiently flexible to enablethis to occur. This is reflected in the publication inAugust 2004 of Planning Policy Statement 7: SustainableDevelopment in Rural Areas(ODPM 2004).

Government has also provided farmers with advice tomake them aware of diversification opportunities andgreater help is now being given with planning applicationsfor diversification activities. Financial incentives to

encourage the re-use of surplus farm buildings arealso being increased. Farmers are already beginning torespond positively to Governments encouragementto re-use farm buildings and a recent Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) report byLobley et al(2002), which investigated the restructuringof farm businesses, found that one in five farmers hadconverted buildings for rent or sale in the recent past andthis trend would grow as more farmers looked to sellor convert their buildings in the near future. The 2004Farm Practices Survey (Defra 2004a) found that one in

ten farmers with pre-1940 farm buildings have buildingsawaiting conversion to other uses.

The need for an evidence base

The challenges of managing historic farm buildingspresent an acute dilemma. On the one hand, farmersand land managers cannot be expected to shoulder theburden of maintaining buildings that have little or noagricultural use. On the other, the large-scale dereliction

of buildings or, equally, the wholesale or ill-conceivedconversion of surplus buildings could irrevocably damageirreplaceable historic assets, the quality of the widerlandscape and the appeal of the countryside for itsresidents and visitors.

If decisions on the management and protection ofhistoric farm buildings are to be well founded, it is alsoessential that the resource is accurately described andchanges monitored. The impor tance of knowledge-baseddecision-making has been recognised within Governmentand its agencies. English Heritage (2000) states:

15


19/134

Before we do anything we need knowledge. Without

understanding what exists today, its value and its

condition, we cannot take sound decisions about

its future. (p.5) ... We cannot care for the historic

environment, or direct resources effectively, unless we

know what it is, its condition and how it is changing. We

need continuous, thoughtful and well-targeted research to

enable us to identify significance and potential. (p.36)

Government echoed this view in its recent policystatement on heritage, The Historic Environment: A Forcefor Our Future:

For all organisations concerned with the historic

environment, a solid evidence base for policy-making is an

essential. For grant-givers such as English Heritage and

the Heritage Lottery Fund, good quality research is vital

to inform the direction of resources. For the Government

and local authorities as legislators and regulators, evidence

is crucial to the process both of framing policy and of

evaluating its impact. (DCMS and DTLR 2001, p.14)

Such understanding is an essential prerequisite for thedevelopment of appropriate policies for the historicenvironment and the management of a sustainablecountryside. Government has recognised the need todevelop a variety of numerical environmental, economicand social indicators (known as Quality of Life indicators)to monitor change in the countryside and enable theeffectiveness of policy to be gauged.

Since the 1970s, Government and its agencies have madeconsiderable efforts to record and monitor countrysidechange. Important progress was made in the 1990s onmethodologies for identifying and characterising thesignificance of the landscape in a way that supportsactive management strategies. This work is feeding intothe Countryside Agency-led development of a NationalCountryside Character Database and indicators ofCountryside Quality. The Rural White Paper (DETR2000) committed Government to produce an indicator

for change in countryside quality. To achieve this aimthe Countryside Agency established the CountrysideQuality Counts (CQC) project. This project is supportedby Defra, English Heritage and English Nature, anddependent upon wider partnerships with the Officeof the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), ForestryCommission, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology(CEH) and the Environment Agency. The first repor thas now been produced covering the period 199098.This provides both a headline indicator of nationalcountryside quality and a set of indicators relating to the

character areas of England.1The process was repeated forthe period 19982003 and will report in 2006.

The lack of data

We know far more about the nature and processes ofchange affecting land cover and field pattern than we doabout agricultures built environment and its contributionto countryside character and local distinctiveness (seeEnglish Heritage 2001; Gaskell 2002).

The deficiency in research devoted to describing andmonitoring change in historic farm buildings is clearlyevident in the principal national sustainability indicators,known as Quality of Life Counts (QLC), which werepublished by the Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions in 1999 (DETR 1999a).The only measure of change relating to the historicbuilt environment is contained within Indicator K5 andquantifies the number of listed grade I and II* buildingsat risk recorded on the English Heritage Buildings at

Risk (BAR) register. The statutory lists provide the onlynational-scale data for the rural built environment.However, the use to which these data have so far beenput has been limited. The English Heritage BAR registercovers only 8 per cent of list entries and little is knownof the threat to the remaining 92 per cent of gradeII entries. It is widely accepted that the register is notrepresentative of the listed building resource as a whole(English Heritage 2001). In turn, this means that theindicator can provide only limited data to inform thedecisions of policy makers.

There is therefore a pressing need to develop morerobust indicators for the historic rural environmentand there is considerable potential to integrate varioussources of data on the condition and management ofand threat to listed agricultural buildings to create suchindicators. To achieve this it is essential to ensure that thedata are representative of the listed agricultural buildingresource as a whole.

To facilitate the creation of these indicators there is aneed to draw together the disparate data that exists on

listed historic farm buildings and supplement them whererequired. The need for better information on historicbuildings to inform decision-making was recognised overtwo decades ago by the Working Party on AlternativeUses of Historic Buildings(British Tourist Authority 1980).However, the current situation is that even the most basicinformation is lacking. There has been no research todescribe the character of the resource, let alone monitorchange and identify the pressures and processes thatlead to change. A broad estimate is that there are morethan 1.2 million pre-1914 historic farm buildings, including

farm dwellings, while the statutory lists contain 72,518agricultural building entries.2

16


20/134

Furthermore, surprisingly little is known about theimpact and effectiveness of the planning system on themanagement of the historic farm building resource.Research in this field has been confined largely to theinfluence of planning policies on farm diversification(Elson et al1995; Shorten et al2001; Nichol 2004).There is a need for research to examine the natureof both statutory planning policy and non-statutoryguidance towards farm buildings at all levels of policy-making. In particular, there is a need to determine, atthe local level, the extent to which these policies andguidance are based upon a rounded appreciation of thehistoric farm building resource, the extent to which theyencourage, or discourage, conversion and re-use, andthe extent to which they take account of the varietyof farm building types. Research is urgently needed toevaluate the effectiveness of planning policy and identifyexamples of good practice within the planning system

with regard to historic farm buildings.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

PROJECT

In 2001 English Heritage and the Countr yside Agencycommissioned the Countryside & Community ResearchUnit to undertake a research project investigating thenature, condition and management of the historic

farmsteads of England. The final repor t of that project,which forms the basis of this monograph, characterisesthe listed agricultural building resource and how it ischanging, analyses the issues surrounding the threats tohistoric farm buildings, and identifies best practice withregard to their management and re-use (Gaskell et al2003).

This research project begins to meet the need forresearch into historic farm buildings outlined above. Theoverall aims of the project were:

to provide baseline data on the character,management and threats to listed agriculturalbuildings in rural and urban fringe areas;

to determine the factors that precipitate change inthe historic farm building resource.

These broad aims were refined and distilled into anumber of more specific objectives. The objectivesrelating to the firstaim were:

to provide baseline data on the character of listedagricultural buildings;

to provide baseline data on the management of andthreat to listed agricultural buildings;

to identify best practice in the collection, storage,analysis and presentation of data on the characterand management of and threat to listed agriculturalbuildings;

to develop sustainability indicators derived from datacollected on listed agricultural buildings capable ofexpression at both a national and regional level;

to provide data to inform the targeting of resourcesfor the management of historic farm buildings,including agri-environment and rural developmentfunding streams.

The objectives relating to the secondaim were:

to identify the macro driving force pressures thatprecipitate change in the management of historicfarm buildings;

to describe the approach taken by local planningauthorities to the management of historic farmbuildings;

to identify best practice amongst local planningauthorities.

DEFINING THE HISTORIC FARMSTEAD

Historic farm buildings and farmsteads have beendefined in a number of different ways by variousauthorities (seeHarvey 1985; Wiliam 1986; Lake1989; Wade Martins 1991; Barnwell & Giles 1997;Brunskill 1999). There is, however, general agreementthat the start of the 20th century represented asignificant watershed, marking the final demise of largelytraditional building styles using local materials and theirreplacement by modern construction techniques usingconcrete and steel. Nevertheless, as Harvey (1985, p.1)notes:

This does not mean that all farm buildings built before

1900 are major historical monuments. It does mean

that all such buildings have some degree of historic

interest ... Neither does it mean that all farm buildings

built after 1900 are devoid of interest. The year 1900

is merely a convenient historical and documentary

breakpoint.

What constitutes a farm building is even more difficultto define. Some authorities make a distinction between

17


21/134

domestic and non-domestic or working farmsteadbuildings and exclude farmhouses and farm cottages,while others stress the importance of the farmhouseas the centre of the farming operation and point outthat the farmhouse and working buildings are oftensituated under the same roof, which makes it difficult todifferentiate between them. Farmstead plans, the waythe buildings are arranged around the homestead andrelate to the house, can be found in a diversity of forms.It was, for example, far more common for the houseson smaller farms in northern and western England to beattached or intimately related to the working farmsteadbuildings. One or two ranges of attached buildings can,therefore, include many different functions. Even smallfarms in the South East, by contrast, are characterised byone or more separate buildings, often loosely arrangedaround the sides of a yard. Post-1750 remodellings andlarger farms, typically over 150 acres, are more likely to

combine a whole diversity of functions in continuousranges or formal cour tyard groupings. Wiliam (1986) andBrunskill (1999) stress the importance of the farmsteadin the historic landscape, with the three elements of thefarmstead farmhouse, farmyard and working buildings being closely dependent on each other.

There is a clear distinction between domestic andworking buildings in terms of the policy framework forhistoric farm buildings. In statutory planning policy andnon-statutory guidance the term historic farm building is

used almost exclusively to mean the working buildings ofthe farmstead.

Another problem of definition is what constitutes thefunction of a building. As Brunskill (1999, p.13) notes:

... farm buildings in the past accommodated several

processes and also housed several activities or functions

... Sometimes each function justified a separate building,

sometimes several functions were accommodated under

one roof.

The ambiguity between function and form is reflectedin many of the written descriptions that form part ofthe statutory lists. This often makes it very difficult todetermine how many individual buildings are beingdescribed unless the description is accompanied by plansor photographs.

For practical reasons it was decided to include bothdomestic and working farmstead buildings in the present

study, largely because the data set maintained by EnglishHeritage of all statutory list entries for agricultural

buildings does not distinguish between farmhousesand farm cottages and the working buildings of thefarmstead. It is clear, however, that the domestic andworking farmstead buildings are subject to very differentprocesses of change. For example, the pressures anddemands placed on threshing barns are very differentfrom those placed on farmhouses. Therefore, wheneverpossible, a distinction is made between domestic andworking buildings when presenting the research findings.

The data set includes a wide range of agricultural listedbuildings that serve domestic dwellings (such as stables),commercial buildings, storage and processing buildings aswell as agricultural buildings associated with a farmstead.Therefore, whenever possible, a further distinction ismade between farmstead and non-farmstead buildings.

RESEARCH METHODS ADOPTED

An exhaustive range of complementary researchmethods was used to secure a comprehensiveunderstanding of the issues relating to historic farmbuildings. This combined a desk study approach withthe analysis of empirical data contained within existingdatabases or collected via postal questionnaires, andtelephone and personal interviews.

Quantitative data

Data from existing databases were combined with datafrom original survey work in order to provide baselinedata on the number, character and management of, andpressures on, listed agricultural buildings. The main sourceof existing data was the English Heritage Listed BuildingsSystem (LBS). The LBS was analysed to determine thecharacter of the listed agricultural building resource interms of date, construction materials and type. The LBSdoes not, however, record information on the conditionof or the threat to the resource. Two other nationaldatabases provided useful but limited data on thecondition of and threats to listed agricultural buildings.These were the English Heritage BAR register of grade Iand II* buildings and the Conservation Database of theCouncil for British Archaeology (CBA), which containsrecords of Listed Building Consent (LBC) applications fortotal or partial demolition. These two existing nationaldatabases provide insufficient data to determine thefull extent of the changes taking place to the resource.In order to obtain more representative data, therefore,three additional surveys were conducted.

The first survey identified those local authorities thatmaintain comprehensive and up-to-date BAR registers.

18


22/134

These registers were analysed to obtain informationon passive change, characterised by a decline in thecondition of buildings due to a lack of maintenance by theowner. All rural local authority participants in the 1991English Heritage BAR study were contacted in an attemptto provide baseline data to compare with the situationin 2001, from which trend data could be produced onthe threat to listed agricultural buildings. However, noneof the local authorities contacted could provide timeseries data and this element of the research could not becarried out.

The second survey was based on a postal questionnaireof 224 local planning authorities selected for study(seeselection of local planning authorities). Thesurvey analysed the planning history of a statisticallyrepresentative sample of LBS list entries for agriculturalbuildings. This survey identified the propor tion of list

entries that had been subject to LBC and planningapplications and the outcomes of these applications. Thisinformation provides a valuable indicator of active changethat is caused by deliberate actions to alter the structureand/or use of a building.

The third survey compared photographs of listedagricultural buildings taken in the 1980s, as part of theAccelerated National Resurvey conducted by EnglishHeritage, with a corresponding set of photographs takenbetween 1999 and 2003 to provide indicators of bothpassive and active change.

Planning data

To investigate the impact and effectiveness of theplanning system on the management of the historicfarm building resource, the research was broadened toencompass both listed and unlisted buildings. In additionto an extensive literature review referenced at theend of the monograph, approximately 175 planningpolicy documents at national, regional, county anddistrict levels were analysed. Over 160 local planning

authorities answered questionnaires on their policiestowards historic farm buildings. Some 50 planningapplications for the re-use of historic farm buildingswere scrutinised, and interviews were conductedwith over 100 different stakeholders participating inthe planning process, including conservation officers,planning officers, applicants, agents, landowners, andstatutory and non-statutory consultees in the planningprocess. Taken together, the findings of the researchprovide a comprehensive account of the contentand implementation of planning and related policies

for historic farm buildings in England. The approach isdescribed in more detail below.

The more detailed evaluation of planning policiesaffecting historic farm buildings and their implementationcomprised four activities:

document analysis of national, regional and countylevel policies;

qualitative case studies in 16 selected planningauthorities to explore how they balancegovernment policy advice to protect thearchitectural and historic integrity of farm buildingswith advice to look favourably on the re-use of suchbuildings. Face-to-face interviews and focus groupswere then undertaken in six of the local authoritiesto assess where policies are being implementedsuccessfully and where they are failing;

case-study work in 16 authorities to identifyexamples where the adaptive re-use of farmbuildings has been successfully achieved withoutdamaging their historic character;

case studies in authorities that have taken aninnovative approach to the conservation andregeneration of their historic farm building resourcethrough the use of whole farm plans and planninggain.

Selection of local planning authorities

Three types of local planning authority were identifiedbased on their accessibility. The classification used wasthat adopted by the Department for Transport, LocalGovernment and the Regions (DTLR) to investigate theimplementation of national planning policy guidance inrelation to the diversification of farm businesses (DTLR2001a). In total 224 authorities in England were selected:3

74 remote rural authorities;

99 accessible rural authorities;

51 urban fringe authorities.

The distribution of selected authorities by GovernmentRegion was:

43 authorities in the South East;

39 in the East of England;

37 in the South West;

27 in the East Midlands;

22 in the North West;

22 in the West Midlands;

21 in Yorkshire and the Humber; 13 in the North East.

19


23/134

Over the past half century a large number ofhistoric farm buildings have become redundant andconsequently have been demolished, neglected oraltered to the detriment of their historic character.

Agricultural decline over the same fifty years meansthat agriculture is no longer the primary economicdriver in rural areas. The changing agriculturalpractices that have been adopted in response tosevere economic pressures often preclude the useand maintenance of historic farm buildings.

Recent changes in agricultural policy at nationaland European levels require the integration ofagriculture into broader rural policies. The parallel

reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

and the implementation of the Rural DevelopmentRegulation (RDR) are likely to lead to greaterrationalisation of farms, further redundancy ofhistoric farm buildings and greater opportunities fortheir re-use.

There have been significant changes in the past fewyears in national planning policy towards a morepermissive approach to economic development inrural areas. The effects of this shift in policy are likelyto encourage the productive re-use and conversionof farm buildings.

National planning policies continue to championthe protection of the historic environment in rural

areas, including farm buildings.

2

HISTORIC FARM BUILDINGS AND THE DRIVERS

OF CHANGE

KEY POINTS

Source:Countryside Agency Clare Pawley

20


24/134

INTRODUCTION

This section of the monograph identifies the mainpressures that precipitate change in the managementof historic farm buildings. An extensive literature reviewwas undertaken to identify the drivers of change

shaping rural economies, and the particular influence ofrecent developments in agricultural and planning policy.The literature was supplemented by interviews withrepresentatives of Government, the professions andvoluntary organisations who were asked to reflect uponand develop further the understanding of the factors thatprecipitate change in the historic farm-building resource.4

Over the past fifty years agriculture has beencharacterised by the widespread adoption oftechnological innovations and new managementtechniques, which has meant that many historic farm

buildings have become functionally redundant. As a result,historic farm buildings are a threatened resource. Sell(1985) identifies two types of threat that are of concern.The first, which he terms absolute loss, describes theloss of a farm building through destruction, demolition orneglect. The second, which he terms relative loss, is theloss of character due to unsuitable repairs or change ofuse, which damages the historic character of the building.

At the level of the individual farm business, the decisionmaker has a number of options for managing historicfarm buildings that may impact differentially upon thebuildings character and landscape setting (Table 1).

The use of a building for its original purpose is generallyseen as the best way to conserve its historic characterand fabric (DoE 1994). However, technological changehas made many if not all historic farm buildings

Table 1Management options for historic farm buildings

Function Management Comment

1 Original use Agricultural The building is used for its original purpose andcontinues to play a part in the farming system.

2 Adaptive re-use Agricultural The building continues to be used for agriculturebut has been adapted to perform a new function.

Economic The building is no longer used for agriculture andhas been converted to an economic use.

Residential The building is no longer used for agriculture andhas been converted to a residential dwelling.

3 No use Maintained The building is no longer used but is maintained.

Not maintained The building is no longer used and is notmaintained.

4 Demolition No development of footprint The building is no longer used and has beendemolished.

Development of footprint The building has been demolished and replaced bynew development.

21


25/134


26/134

to choose between producing more food and caringfor the countryside they should choose the latter. Itis clear that some of these drivers are more relevantthan others in precipitating change to the historic farmbuilding resource. Of particular importance are thosethat change the economics of agricultural productionand the relationship between agriculture and other ruraleconomic sectors and interests.

Agro-economic drivers of change

In 2000, the Economics and Statistics Group of the thenMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food identified fourimportant agro-economic drivers that help to shape theagricultural industry (MAFF 2000a) and in recent yearsthese have come together at the farm level to createconcerted pressure on farm incomes:

consumer demands;

technological change;

international trade agreements;

European and national policies.

Consumer demands

In the UK, like other developed economies with a well-fed and relatively stable population, the demand for foodrises only slowly. While in absolute terms consumers

spend more on food as their incomes rise, they tend tospend a smaller proportion of their budget on food anddrink. In the last fifty years the proportion of the familybudget spent on food has fallen from 30 per cent to 10per cent (Defra 2002a). This decline in the demand forfood relative to income levels has meant that the price offarm products has not risen as fast as the price of othercommodities.

As part of these economic processes, the rate of increasein the cost of farm inputs, such as land, labour, fertilisers

and machinery, has tended to outstr ip the rise in productprices, and this has been exacerbated as farmers havebecome more dependent on the supply industries forinputs such as agrochemicals and machinery. During theSecond World War and the immediate post-war periodoverall farm incomes rose in real terms, but since 1949there has been a general decline, although this has beensubject to a number of fluctuations. In addition, frequentfood scares and the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy(BSE) and foot and mouth disease (FMD) crises havemade consumers increasingly concerned about food

safety and production methods. The quality, safety andtraceability of food, together with animal welfare issues,

are informing the purchasing decisions of a significantand growing segment of the population. Farmers haveto adapt to both changing markets and new legislationintroduced to address food quality and safety concerns.Environmental issues have also risen higher on the publicagenda where changes in tastes and preferences havemeant that the quality of the rural environment andcountryside leisure activities have become significantlymore important to consumers (Defra 2002a).

Technological change

The agricultural industry has adopted new technologies,which have resulted in significant changes to farmingpractices. Specialisation and the simplification of farmingsystems have been made possible through the adoptionof chemical and mechanical technologies (Briggs &Courtney 1985), which have also enabled land to be used

more intensively. Chemical technologies have underminedthe biological principles of mixed farming. Herbicides arenow used to control weed growth, making root cropsunnecessary, while pesticides and fungicides keep pestsand diseases under control, thereby eliminating the needfor cleaning rotations.

In addition, new crop breeds have helped to raise yieldseven further. Where farmers have specialised in intensivelivestock production, they have also used a wide range oftechnological advances. Antibiotics and other drugs now

control the spread of disease, while meat productionis increased through the use of growth-promotinghormones. Livestock is intensively reared in purpose-builttemperature- and humidity-controlled buildings. Welfareissues are also a driver for change and may result inbuildings becoming redundant. Mixed farming also hasbeen undermined by the high cost of mechanising everycrop. This has encouraged specialisation in a smallernumber of crops that can be handled more efficiently bythe same machinery. The end result has been the regionalspecialisation of production into separate arable andlivestock areas. One of the consequences of this is thatmany of the historic farm buildings erected to serve amixed farming economy are now functionally redundantand are not suited to the scale of modern productionprocesses and the machinery that accompanies it.

International Trade Agreements

The UK has been a member of the General Agreementon Tariffs and Trade (GATT) since 1948, but it was notuntil 1986 and the Uruguay Round that GATT membersbegan to address the trade distortions caused by

subsidies and tariffs in agriculture. One of the outcomesof the Uruguay Round was the creation in 1995 of the

23


27/134

World Trade Organisation (WTO), which was set up todeal with the rules of trade between nations. The WTO isnow taking forward the Agreement on Agriculture, whichaims to reduce trade distortions in agriculture. The WTOclassifies agricultural support payments into three groups:

red box supports linked to production that distorttrade and must be phased out (no longer inoperation);

amber box supports, which significantly distorttrade and must be reduced;

green box supports, which have little or noeffect on trade (such as UK agri-environment andenterprise schemes).

In 1992, at the same time as the Uruguay Round wastaking place, the European Union and the USA concludedthe Blair House agreement. This agreement addedanother category of support:

blue box supports that are based on area and

headage, which limit production but are not linkedto price or the volume of output.

Even though the latest round of WTO talks on agricultureheld in Cancun in Mexico stalled in September 2003,further trade liberalisation is likely to remain high on theagenda. It is likely that green box payments, where mostCommon Agricultural Policy (CAP) support will residefrom 2005, will remain unchallenged in the short termbut may be threatened by the more radical members ofthe WTO in the future (Jones 2004).

European and national policy

The CAP has been, and will continue to be, a majordriving force for change. Seymour (2001) notes, however,that since the beginning of the 1980s there has beena gradual weakening of the pursuit of sectoral policiesat the EU and national levels and the developmentof an alternative integrated approach aimed at

addressing the problems of geographic areas ratherthan economic sectors. A central feature of this policy

Figure 1 Change in the number and average size of holdings in the UK, 19752000

Year

Num

berofholdings(Thousands)

Source:Eurostat

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

2000199719951993199019871985198319801975

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total holdings

Average holding area

Holdingsize(ha)

24


28/134

approach is the concept of sustainable development.The role of agricultural and planning policy (both ofwhich are explicitly influenced by the goal of sustainabledevelopment) as drivers of change, and their influence onhistoric farm buildings, is covered in more detail later inthis section.

National level responses to the agro-economicdrivers of change

For the agricultural sector as a whole it is clear that theindustry has responded to these drivers by adoptingcapital-intensive technologies, shedding labour, reducingthe number of independent businesses and increasingfarm size. Between 1975 and 2000 the total number ofholdings in the UK declined by 18 per cent from 280,000to 233,000. At the same time the average size of holdingsincreased by 16 per cent from 58.7 to 67.8 hectares(Figure 1).

Similarly the total labour force, measured in Annual Work

Units (AWU), declined by 47 per cent from 625,000 to334,000. Over the same period the average agriculturalarea managed per AWU increased by 80 per cent from26.3 to 47.3 hectares (Figure 2).

The agricultural income crisis

On top of these long-term processes that combine

to create downward pressure on farm incomes, threeadditional drivers have triggered the recent income crisis:

the strength of Sterling relative to other currenciesand especially the Euro;

a fall in world market prices for a range ofcommodities;

the BSE and FMD crises and their effects.

By 2000 Net Farm Incomes in the UK were as low in

real terms as at any time in the last 30 years (Figure 3).Average income has fallen by 60 per cent since 1995

Source:Eurostat

Figure 2 Change in the agricultural labour force and average number of hectares per Annual Work Unit in theUK, 19752000

Year

To

tallabourinput(1000AWUs)

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000199719951993199019871985198319801975

0

10

20

30

40

50

HectaresperAWU

Total AWUs

Hectares per AWU

25


29/134

Year

million

Figure 3 Agricultural industry income trends in the UK (real terms at 2003 prices), 19732003

Source: Defra (2004c)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

2003200119991997199519931991198919871985198319811979197719751973

Total Income From Farming

Total Income From Farming per

whole time person equivalent

per

fulltimepersonequivalent

after doubling between 1990 and 1995. Total Incomefrom Farming5was at 35 per cent of the levels seenin the mid 1970s and about 70 per cent of the levelsseen in the late 1980s (MAFF 2000a and 2000b). Therecession has been felt across all the major farmingsystems, although some have fared less well than others.In par ticular, hill and lowland livestock farms have beenmost severely affected. Since 2000, farm incomes haverecovered to a level more in line with the late 1980s butDefra predicts that there will be little further change toincomes over the next five years and that there may evenbe another decline (Defra, 2004c).

Of the three factors that precipitated the income crisis ofthe late 1990s, the most damaging was the rise in valueof Sterling against the Euro, although this has since easedsomewhat. It is very difficult for producers to maintainprices and retain markets when Sterling undergoes asustained period of appreciation. Its high value makes

it increasingly difficult to export, while foreign producebecomes cheaper and more attractive to the processors

and retailers who supply domestic markets. Furthermore,the support and compensation payments forcommodities that were protected under the CAP werepaid in Euros. This meant that as Sterling appreciated invalue against the Euro the level of support payments toUK farmers was effectively reduced.

To compound the negative impact of exchange-rate movements there was a significant downturn inthe world economy. This had a knock-on effect onworld commodity markets where demand and pricesslumped since 1995, which added to the difficulties ofUK agriculture. The effects of the BSE and FMD crisescontinue to be felt by farmers in terms of restrictedexport markets and higher production costs. Thesefactors came together in various combinations to pushfarm incomes into a downward spiral across all sectors,the effects of which are still being felt across the industry.

A number of drivers are not directly related to theagricultural industry but nonetheless have a significant

26


30/134

influence on it. Of particular importance is the combina-tion of forces that have driven the counterurbanisationthat has taken place in some rural areas. Between 1981and 2001, Englands rural population grew by 1.5 millionpeople (12%) while the urban population increased byonly 813,000 (2%) (Countryside Agency 2003). Affluentpeople have moved to the countryside attracted by thehigh-quality environment and way of life. This has been

facilitated by changes in personal mobility that haveenabled greater distances to be travelled to work, and a

range of technological innovations that have enabledincreasing numbers to work from home. The desire forcountry living shows no signs of abating as shown by the1999 British Social Attitudes Survey, which found thatwhile 18 per cent of those surveyed said they lived in thecountryside, nearly 50 per cent said they would like to doso (Countryside Agency 2000a).

The desire for country living has also resulted in adramatic increase in the purchase of agricultural land by

Table 2 Farm-level responses to economic and social pressures

A. Adjustments In The Use of On-Farm Resources A1. Conventional AgriculturalProduction

Increase the area of the farmbusiness.

Specialise production. Intensify production. Restructure labour use.

A2. Agricultural Diversification Unconventional agricultural

enterprises. Adding value to conventional and

unconventional products through on-farm processing and packaging.

Alternative marketing of agricultural

products. Supply of agricultural labour and/ormachinery contracting services toother farms/businesses.

Access, conservation andenvironmental goods.

A3. Tourism and Recreation Farm-based accommodation. Farm-based recreation.

A4. Use of Ancillary Buildings and Land

B. Adjustments In The Use of Off-Farm Resources B1. Off-Farm Employment B2. Off-Farm Business Opportunities

C. Asset Realisation C1. Sale of Land, Buildings, Shares, OtherAssets

D. Make No Change D1. Accept a Lower Standard of Living

E. Leave Farming E1. Retirement

E2. Engage in Another Sector of theEconomy

27


31/134

non-farmers (Figure 4). According to a report by FPDSavills (2004) new lifestyle buyers represented 41 percent of farm purchases compared to 12 per cent in 1992.

Over the past half centur y, as agriculture has witnesseda decline in its social and economic importance otherindustries have grown up in rural areas. There is now littledifference in the employment profiles of different sectorsbetween rural and urban areas (Countryside Agency

2000a). Both have experienced strong growth in ser vicesector activities. There is some evidence that high-qualityrural environments have attracted entrepreneurs intothe countryside (Roberts 2002) and this has broughtwith it increased demand for both rural workspacesand residences, with obvious implications for the re-useof historic farm buildings. A major growth in leisure andtourism employment and spending has also taken place inrural areas (Countryside Agency 2000a).

Farm level responses to the drivers of change

As well as responding to external economic pressureson their income, farm businesses also have to respondto internal family pressures. Farmers have developeda variety of coping strategies, which involve makingcompromises between, on the one hand, ensuring familycontinuity and retaining independence and, on the other,generating capital to fund the expansion necessary toensure the economic survival of the business (Marsden etal1989).

When faced with a reduction in farm incomes, farmersmay have several courses of action open to them(Winter & Gaskell 1995). These courses of action, knownas adjustment strategies, are of four main kinds and areoutlined in Table 2. The adoption of such adjustmentstrategies is not mutually exclusive and farm businessesmay include more than one at any time, and as a farmbusiness develops it may change from one strategy toanother as circumstances change. The type of strategy or

strategies adopted by farmers will help to determine themanagement decisions about the farms historic buildings.

Figure 4 Proportion of farms purchased by lifestyle buyers, 19922003

0

10

20

30

40

50

New lifestyle buyers

200320022001200019991998199719961995199419931992

Source: FPDSavills (2004)

Year

%offarmsbought

28


32/134

Variations in the restructuring of farm

businesses

Not all farmers respond in the same way to pressureson their income. Their behaviour depends on thecombination of social, economic and physical resourcesat their disposal and the macro-economic, political and

technological drivers that are in operation at the time(Munton et al 1987). External drivers are diverse andoperate at different spatial scales from global to local andprovide the framework within which farm businessesoperate (Lobley et al2002). Adjustments are madeboth as a response to changes in this framework andin compliance with the aims of the farm family. Farmersfreedom of action is therefore constrained by bothexternal forces, operating beyond their control, and arange of internal ones located within the family business,including:

farm assets, including the number and location ofhistoric farm buildings;

business size;

farm tenure;

family composition, availability and desire to work inthe farm business;

level of borrowing and ability to service loans.

As changes take place to these driving forces different

types of adjustment may become more or less attractiveto individual farmers and, indeed, to whole sectors ofthe farming industry. What is clear, however, is that overthe past decade the agricultural sector has received anumber of shocks to the system in the form of majorCAP reforms, food scares and a dramatic fall in incomesthat have prompted many farmers to review the wholeof their businesses from top to bottom.

Research by Lobley et al(2002) into the current andfuture restructuring of Englands agricultural businessesfound that farm buildings played an important part in

the restructuring process. In the previous five years 60per cent of all farmers surveyed had liquidated assets,especially buildings, either to pay off debts or to invest indiversification activities and 17 per cent had convertedbuildings for sale or rent (Figure 5). They also found thatbusiness restructuring involving farm buildings would playan important role in the subsequent five years, with 30per cent of farmers planning to convert their buildingsfor sale or rent and 57 per cent planning to sell offassets. This clearly shows that a significant proportion offarmers have actively sought to re-use farm buildings for

residential and economic purposes in the recent pastand almost twice as many will seek to do the same in

the future. Although Lobley et alsresearch does notdifferentiate between economic and residential re-use, a study of farm diversification activities in Englandconducted by the Centre for Rural Research (2003)found that 88 per cent of buildings sold off by farmerswere destined for residential re-use and only 7 per centfor economic re-use. While the volume of farm buildingsto be channelled into adaptive re-use seems set to growdramatically, there is evidence that the number of farmbuildings included within agri-environment schemes mayalso increase. Lobley et alfound that while 22 per cent offarmers had entered an agri-environment scheme in theprevious five years, 35 per cent were planning to join ascheme in the future.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL

POLICY

A new context for agricultural policy

Government is committed to modernising the policyframework for rural areas and is promoting theintegration of agricultural policy with broader rural policyat both national and European levels. It has defined itsvision for the countr yside in its Rural White Paper (DETR2000) as:

a living countryside, with thriving rural communitiesand access to high-quality public services;

a working countryside, with a prosperous anddiverse economy, giving high and stable levels ofemployment;

a protected countryside, in which the environmentis sustained and enhanced, and which all can enjoy;

a vibrant countryside which can shape its ownfuture and whose voice is heard by Government atall levels.

Building on this vision, the Rural Strategy 2004 (Defra2004b) sets out Governments approach to rural policyand delivery over the shor t term (three to five years).The strategy identifies three priorities that will informrural policy:

Economic and Social Regeneration supportingenterprise across rural England, but targeting greaterresources at areas of greatest need.

Social Justice for All tackling rural social exclusionwherever it occurs and providing fair access toservices and opportunities for all rural people.

29


33/134

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Farmers reporting change

Figure 5 Changes to agricultural businesses in the recent past and near future

Source: Lobley et al(2002)

Enhancing the Value of our Countryside protecting

the natural environment for this and future

generations.

The primary economic role of agriculture will continue

to be the production of food (Box 1). The FMD crisis

of 2001 and the findings of the Policy Commission on

Food and Farming (Defra 2002b) have led Government

to consider the long-term sustainability of farming.

The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food (Defra

2002a) re-emphasises the vision of a protectedcountryside where the environment is sustained and

enhanced. However, it is recognised that, in the process

of restructuring to achieve this vision, there is a danger

that there may be serious negative impacts on some

rural areas. For example, Lord Haskins, who headed

the Governments Rural Recovery Task Force, predicted

that half of all farm businesses might disappear by

2020 (The Guardian2001). As a result, a range of policy

initiatives and support networks have been developed to

ameliorate the worst effects of agricultural restructuring

at different scales.

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Reform

The CAP has been, and over the next decade will

continue to be, a major influence on the agricultural

industry. The latest round of agricultural policy reforms

was agreed in June 2003 and is the most radical since

the CAPs inception, as it breaks the link between

support and production (Defra 2004c). During the 1970s

and 80s there was a growing recognition that CAP

commodity support regimes encouraged overproduction,

engendered market distortion and contributed to

significant environmental damage. By decoupling supportfrom production the aim is to ensure that farmers

production decisions are based on market signals rather

than being directed by the subsidies. This latest round of

reforms, combined with the Agenda 2000 reforms agreed

in 1999, are central to Governments medium- and long-

term strategy for agriculture.

The first and only partial step in breaking the link

between farm support and production was begun as

part of the 1992 CAP reform and extended under

Agenda 2000. This approach was to reduce the level ofguaranteed price support for agricultural commodities,

%

offarmers

Convertedbuild

ingsforsale/ren

t

Paidoff/reduced

debtsbyselling

assets

EnteredAgri-en

vironmentschem

e

Previous 5 years

Next 5 years

30


34/134

Box 1 Government vision for farming

Farmings main task will still be to produce the food we eat.

Farming will be more forward-looking, competitive and flexible, more capable of responding quickly to marketchanges and new consumer demands.

An increasing recognition of the role that farmers and land managers play in maintaining an attractive anddiverse countryside and in sustaining the wider rural economy.

Many more farmers will turn a positive approach to the environment to their own economic advantage, withpayments for environmental goods that the nation wants: flourishing wildlife, living landscapes, a protectedheritage and opportunities for leisure.

The growing market opportunities for sustainable products will enable the production and environmentalfunctions to be combined via the marketplace for an increasing proportion of the industry.

There will still be room for large and small farms, full-time and par t-time businesses. But farms including

entrepreneurial family farms will be more diverse in terms of structure, business organisation and the mix ofagricultural and non-agricultural activities.

Farmers will take up opportunities to learn, develop and exploit new skills and techniques.

Government and industry will continue to work closely together to meet these challenges, to get awayfrom the cycle of shor t-term crises and become again what farming should be: a world-class industry in aworld-class setting.

Source: DETR (2000)

and in return to compensate farmers for these price

cuts by introducing a system of direct payments, stillrelated to farmers production patterns (i.e. paymentsmade per head of livestock kept or per hectare of cropsgrown each year). The Agenda 2000 reforms deepenedthe price cuts introduced in 1992 and increased theassociated compensation payments, but the par tial link toproduction was maintained through the direct paymentapproach. The latest reforms mean that, throughoutthe UK, farm subsidies are now fully decoupled fromproduction. The Single Payment Scheme (SPS) replacesall the former direct payments with a unified system of

payments made per hectare of farmland, unrelated tofarmers current production decisions (Defra 2004d).

The Rural Development Regulation (RDR) and

the England Rural Development Programme

(ERDP)

In addition to the reform of the commodity supportregimes there has also been significant reform of themeasures to promote the restructuring of the agriculturalsector. Agenda 2000 expanded upon the reform

package measures introduced in 1992 and placed themwithin a new integrated framework in the form of a

single regulation: the Rural Development Regulation

(RDR), frequently referred to as the second pillar of theCAP (Defra 2001). Under the June 2003 reforms theresources allocated to the RDR under future spendingprogrammes will be increased through compulsorymodulation (fund-switching), which transfers a smallproportion of CAP money from the commodity regimesinto the rural development budget from 2005 (ADAS &SQL 2003).

Under the RDR, Member States of the European Unionare required to produce Rural Development Plans (RDP),

which serve as Programming Documents for spendingprogrammes under the RDR for the period 200006.In the UK, it was decided to devolve RDP design anddelivery to the four regions of England, Scotland, Walesand Northern Ireland. Defra is responsible for theEngland Rural Development Programme (ERDP), whichhas been planned in a national framework document withregional chapters based on Government Office Regions.

Government sees the ERDP as an important vehiclefor implementing its vision for agriculture. The ERDP is

intended to facilitate the process of restructuring andperformance improvement in the agricultural industry,

31


35/134

ERDP Measure Total intended expenditure % of budget over the plan period ( million)

Agri-environment schemes 1050 63

Hill Farm Allowance Scheme (from 2001) 162 10

Training 22 1

Woodland schemes 216 13

Processing and Marketing Grant Scheme 44 3

Rural Enterprise Scheme 152 9

Energy Crops 29 2

Table 3 Planned RDR expenditure in England, 200006

Source: MAFF (2000c)

to advance environmentally beneficial farming practices,and to support diversification beyond the farm gate. Inparticular, Government sees it as an important tool in itsattempt to encourage farmers to move away from low-cost, high-volume commodity production and into highervalue and more diverse markets, including quality andvalue-added foods, rural tourism and leisure, supportingthe reconnection of farming with the wider ruraleconomy and the provision of public goods through landmanagement.

The national priorities of the ERDP are (from datasupplied by MAFF 2000c):

to facilitate the development of dynamic,competitive and sustainable economies in theEnglish countryside, tackling poverty in rural areas;

to maintain and stimulate communities, and

secure access to services that is equitable in allcircumstances, for those who live or work in thecountryside;

to conserve and enhance rural landscapes and thediversity and abundance of wildlife (including thehabitats on which it depends), to safeguard theirintegrity and value for future generations and toprovide a source of economic opportunity;

to increase opportunities for

Historic Farm Buildings Full

Documents

Transcript of Historic Farm Buildings Full