A number of agricultural industry bodies have joined forces to stop a proposed planning levy from impacting on agricultural building and development.
The National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers’ Association and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers have come together on the issue.
The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would be charged on all new building development which requires planning permission. The idea behind the proposal is that part of any uplift in land values created when planning permission is granted could be used to help fund the infrastructure required by the new development.
The four industry organisations want to see agricultural buildings exempt from the levy, as firstly there is no uplift in land value when planning permission is granted for their development; if left in place they say the levy would, in effect, be a tax on food production, as it could only be met from farming income. And second, as agricultural development is required for agricultural purposes, it has minimal impact on the infrastructure that the CIL is expected to fund.
In a joint statement, they said: “We have been campaigning to have agricultural development exempt from the CIL because when permission (whether under the notification procedure or full planning permission) is granted for a new agricultural building, there is no consequent uplift in land value. Therefore, any levy would have to be paid out of income which is contrary to the underlying principle of the regulations. This would make agricultural development uneconomic and could potentially be seen as a tax on food production.
“We have had a very useful meeting with government, we have written to the minister responsible and we are hopeful common sense will prevail.
“Above all, we should be encouraging farmers to invest in the necessary new buildings needed to support the additional food production required to help feed a growing global population; this is a point recognised by both government and the wider industry.
“If left in place for agricultural buildings, the CIL could only be financed from income; a critical cost increase in the food chain which could not be borne by the farming industry alone.”