Fantasy figures

The county council provided me with the calculations below to justify the statement made to the Ombudsman that: "When it was discovered that the farming practices were changing [had changed], with the run down [sale] of the dairy herd, after the decision to grant permission by the Planning and Rights of Way committee, an exercise was carried out to evaluate whether the on-going [potential - see below] levels of stocking and cropping would in themselves without the dairy herd, be sufficient to justify an additional dwelling in term of the functional test and the financial test and the the conclusion was positive [and arithmetically flawed - see below]. there was therefore no case to consider the revocation of the decision which had been made. It is also pertinent to state that the farm retains its dairy quota [it may retain ownership of the dairy quota but it doesn't retain the ability to use it because it has been leased out - see final calculation below]

Please note: I have slightly rejigged the first calculation to make it easier to understand and my comments are in italics throughout.

CWMBETWS - POTENTIAL* AS BEEF UNIT
Current non dairy stocking rate analysis:
Dairy Cattle128 + 37 = 165 at 1 cow per acre
Area needed to support therefore165 acres
350 [total acreage] - 165 [land formerly occupied by dairy herd] = 185 acres.
185 - 73 [crops and rough land]= 112 acres [to support the present 162-strong beef herd.]
162 [cattle] divided by 112 [acres] is equivalent to 1.44 cows/acre.
Applying this stocking density to the whole of the area available for grazing now that the dairy herd
is no more
(165+112 = 277 acres) x 1.44 = 398 (say 400 cattle)

* "Potential" does not comply with WAG's Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 which states at paragraph 41 that "New permanent dwellings should only be allowed to support existing agricultural activities on well established agricultural units provided: (a) there is a clearly established existing (WAG's emphasis) functional need."

This stocking rate is lower than normal 1.7/1.8 cows/acre.

FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT 1.44 COWS/ACRE

Beef and other cattle ...400 x 16hrs per annum = 6400
Tack sheep ....................350 x 2hrs per annum= 700
Cropping/grass remain the same ........................ 1266
Total ..................................................................8366
Essential maintenance etc. at 15% ..................... 1254
Total...................................................................9620

at 2200 hours per person per annum = 4.37 labour units

FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT AT 1.7 COWS/ACRE WOULD SEE CATTLE NUMBERS RISE TO 595*

Beef and other cattle............ 595 x 16 = 9520 [NB this figure of 595 is wrong see * below]
Sheep ......................................................700
Cropping/grass...................................... 1266
Total.....................................................11486
Essentail maintainence at 15% ................1722
Total Labour requirement.......................13208**

Divide by 2,200 hrs equivalent to 6 full time workers***
* This is mathematically flawed because the 1.7 cattle/acre has been multiplied by the total acreage of 350 and not, as in the first example, the area available for grazing i.e 277 acres. The correct figure is 277 x 1.7 = 470 a difference of some 25%.
** This figure is also incorrect because the amount of labour to look after 470 "beef and other cattle" is 7520 hrs and not 9520.
*** This figure is also wrong because 2,200 should now be divided into 11,208 and not 13,208 giving 5 full time workers

Functional requirement for a second dwelling at either stocking rate can be achieved by a significant margin.

FINANCIAL PROJECTION
Gross Margin beef unit @ £266 acre................... £93,100*
Tack sheep at 45p per head/per week (25 wks) ....£3,937
Income from quota leasing .....................................£3,325
Total ..................................................................£100,362
Less fixed costs inc. labour ...................................£80,150
Net Profit .............................................................£20,212

N.B. the income figure does not included SFP [Single Farm Payment] which will increase gross margin and net profit.

A business based on the above performance would have no difficulty in meeting the requirements of the functional [financial?] test.

*This figure is wrong because it uses the whole acreage to calculate the gross margin from the beef unit. Clearly, as farms will differ from each other in the total amount of "waste" land - rough woodland etc - this is a methodologically unsound way to proceed. In any case, as the gross margin will, of necessity, be a function of the number of cattle on the farm, any calculation based on cattle numbers 25% more than can be actually stocked (see above) is clearly suspect.
And, finally, in order to justify a second dwelling on an existing farm, there should be some change in the "scale and nature" of the farming operation.
As the number of dwellings is to be increased, it is safe to assume that this change in the "scale or nature" must involve an increase in the farm's labour requirements.
According to the figures used by the council, tending a dairy animal requires 36 hours per annum while a beef animal requires 16.
Replacing 165 dairy cattle in terms of labour needs, would require 165 x 36 divided by 16 = 371 beef animals.
Adding those 371 to the 162 already on the farm gives a total of 533, which, divided by the acreage available for grazing (277 acres), gives a stocking density of 1.9 to the acre.
And that is just to bring the farm up to its present labour needs.
To achieve an increase in labour needs sufficient to meet the "scale and nature" test would obviously require an even heavier stocking density.