THE FARMER'S PERSPECTIVE

Let’s start by explaining something about farming that the Labour government of late would have been well-advised to educate themselves about.  I personally chose not to become one despite the opportunity of having come from farming stock but I have perhaps rather more knowledge than most (including the government it would seem) of how these businesses run and some of what I have to say in this regard may well surprise those of you who are less familiar.

First of all let me disillusion you of the imagination that farming in this country is dominated by the large-scale players owning vast tracts of land and earning similarly vast fortunes from their leisurely lifestyles.  Government statistics for my region of birth for example, the south-west, show an average farm size of only 170 acres earning an average farm business income of £62,800 per farm.  That’s roughly equivalent to what an early Gen Z would be expecting to be earning as an HR ‘professional’ after 5-6 years out of college but, forgive me for saying you zoomers, with a considerable amount less hard work, financial risk, stress and heart-ache involved.  Rachel Reeves please take note.

In this context then it is not surprising that farmers look to diversify whenever they can and creating natural burial grounds might be regarded as one of those opportunities.  Of the 270 or so natural burial sites that exist across England and Wales approximately half are owned by local authorities with farmers joining charitable trusts and both commercial and non-profit organisations to make up the other fifty per cent.  Straightforward enough one might imagine if one were to set aside a field or two and have a mini-digger to hand but the truth is rather different.  For some this may appeal but for others the initial capital outlay, unavoidable bureaucracy and administrative burden as well as the distraction from core, farming activity is not such an attractive prospect.  What I am looking at here then is something completely different.  A micro-involvement involving relatively tiny numbers of burials as opposed to those approximately 300/acre of the formal, natural grounds and significantly avoiding those pitfalls that I have referred to. 

Were such to be feasible then it is worth a moment I think to consider the possible benefits and rewards.  Aside from the obvious potential to charge a sensible market rate for the burial rights (to likely include the preparation and backfilling of the grave) there would be no capital expenditure, no tortuous bureaucracy, no disruption or interference with ongoing farming activity, no visible detraction of the land and quite possibly not even any intrusive access rights given over.

For some while now there has been general discussion and, I have to say, confusion as to the exact state of play were a farmer/landowner to decide to look at this matter such as I have described in a serious way.  There will undoubtedly be plenty of negatives that you may read about such as references to burial licences, clinical waste, material change of planning use, restrictions to friends and family burials and land de-valuation.  My view is that some of these are quite simply wrong (burial licences?) whilst others are unnecessarily defensive and the aggregate of them all is altogether unhelpful.  My preference then is to accentuate the positive.

Changing tack rather you may want to consider the following more positive extracts:

• There is no law prohibiting burial on private land [Law Commission].

• … for a limited number of interments (on private land), planning permission is not required.  The reason is simple, though: the presence of a very small number of burials would not constitute a ‘material change of use’ hence no such consent would be required [The Natural Death Handbook, 5th Edition p.142].

• Solicitors have also advised that the principle of de minimus must be applied – the law is not concerned with trivial matters – and that there must be an increase or ‘intensification’ to reach a point where there has been or would be a ‘substantial’ or ‘material’ change of use. [Green Burial, J B Bradfield p.50].

• It serves no-one’s interest to require planning permission for types of development that generally do not damage amenity [Changes of Use, DoE 13/87].

• Exhumation licences yes.  Burial licences no.  [You may take that as read].

My role, should any farmer/landowner choose to invite it, would be to explore the potential of that land for something which I, and many others I’m sure including the Natural Death Centre, see as being entirely sensible and could genuinely be described as a public service given the paucity of burial space now available.  In doing so I would address any and all issues and concerns that may present themselves relating to planning, land ownership and rights over as well as all relevant regulatory matters.  As to whether or not this could possibly lead to any net positive that would clearly be a matter for my prospective client to decide