Latest news with #farmland
Irish Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Heir of Barne Estate ‘shocked' by €50,000 ‘luck penny' offer from John Magnier
An heir to the 17th-century Barne Estate, who is being sued by John Magnier over a collapsed property deal for the farmland, has told the High Court he was 'shocked' by an 'untoward' offer of 'two envelopes stuffed with money' amounting to €50,000 from the bloodstock billionaire which was meant as a 'luck penny'. Richard Thomson-Moore was giving evidence at the High Court on Wednesday in his defence relating to the failed €15 million agreement. Mr Magnier wants the court to enforce the deal he claims he sealed with Mr Thomson-Moore in an alleged handshake agreement for the 751-acre farm on August 22nd, 2023, at Mr Magnier's Coolmore home. The Magnier side has sued the Barne Estate, Mr Thomson-Moore and three companies of IQEQ (Jersey) Ltd group, seeking to enforce the purported deal, which they say had been 'unequivocally' agreed. The Barne defendants say there was never any such agreement, as they needed the consent of the trustees to finalise any agreement, and subsequently they preferred to sell the estate to billionaire Maurice Regan. Mr Thomson-Moore has told the court that while a 'price' was agreed with Mr Magnier for Barne, a 'deal' was not. After agreeing on €15 million, Barne and the Magniers entered into an exclusivity agreement stipulating that the estate would not permit itself or its representatives to solicit or encourage any expression of interest, inquiry or offer on the property from anyone other than Mr Magnier between August 31st and September 30th, 2023. However, during September 2023, billionaire Maurice Regan offered about €20 million. The trustees, who hold the estate, decided to remain loyal to the Magnier offer and felt the higher offer of Mr Regan could be seen as a 'provocative' one. The court has heard that on September 7th, 2023 – two weeks after Mr Magnier claims he shook hands with Mr Thomson-Moore on the deal for the Barne Estate – Mr Magnier called to Barne with his son, JP. The Thomson-Moores have told the court their estate agent, John Stokes, who had walked out with the Magniers, returned to the house with two brown envelopes given to him by JP containing a total of €50,000 in cash. Mr Thomson-Moore told the court that he did not interrogate Mr Stokes about the purpose of the envelopes and that Mr Stokes explained their offering as a 'luck penny'. A 'luck penny' is an amount of money given by a buyer to the seller after a deal is done to bring good luck. The Magnier side have told the court that the money was a token of 'appreciation' to the Thomson-Moores for letting the Magnier side on to the land before any sale was finalised. The Magnier side were ultimately gazumped by US-based construction magnate Mr Regan, who offered a final €22.25 million, and was made the preferred bidder. Mr Regan is not a party to the case. At the High Court on Wednesday, Mr Thomson-Moore said the delivery of the money to their Barne home caused him 'shock' and said he felt the offer of 'envelopes stuffed with cash' was 'untoward'. The money was later returned by the Thomson-Moores. Mr Thomson-Moore told defence barrister Niall Buckley SC that a guide price of €13.5 million had been advertised by the selling agents, which he thought was underpriced. He believed the property to be worth between €17.5 and €20 million, based on a comparative property in Co Kildare. Mr Thomson-Moore said that Mr Magnier's retort to this valuation was 'slightly hostile', before an offer of €15 million was accepted by the Thomson-Moores at the Coolmore kitchen meeting. Caren Geoghegan SC, for the Magniers, asked Mr Thomson-Moore about lists drawn up detailing the contents of the Barne mansion and asked why there were two lists – one 'complete' list, with a separate incomplete list going to the trustees of the estate. Mr Thomson-Moore said that after the Magnier offer he was in talks organising an auction of the contents of Barne with Mealy's auction house. Ms Geoghegan put it to Mr Thomson-Moore that his intention at this time was to give one list to the trustees that did not disclose all the items in the house. She put it to him that his intent was to not disclose 'high-value items' to the trustees of the estate, which he denied. 'There is no ambiguity about the intention,' said Ms Geoghegan, 'a complete list and then a separate list for trustees.' Mr Thomson-Moore said 'it didn't happen' but added: 'That is what it looks like, though, yes.' The case continues before Mr Justice Max Barrett.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Councillors speak out as south Essex farmland is removed from draft housing plan
West Leigh councillors have spoken out after a huge swathe of farmland between Hadleigh and Leigh was removed from a draft local plan. Castle Point Council published their draft plan this week, showing proposals to build 6,196 houses across Castle Point. Residents had been campaigning in large numbers to ensure the draft plan would not include the Salvation Army-owned land by Hadleigh Country Park after it was initially proposed. The newly-published draft plan has now removed this site after months of protests by both Leigh and Hadleigh residents. Owen Cartey, Conservative councillor for West Leigh, said: "Thank you to everybody who has helped our campaign go from strength to strength, whether that was putting up a poster, signing a petition, coming on a march or writing in your concerns to the consultation. "Every bit of action made a difference. "If anything changes in the coming months we will get our megaphones back out and make sure the voice of West Leigh residents is heard loud and clear once again." Lesley Salter, another Conservative councillor for West Leigh, added: "I know residents across West Leigh, particularly those directly backing onto this land will rejoice at this news. "We made sure our neighbours in Castle Point heard our voice loud and clear - no imposing overdevelopment on our border without listening to us first. "This just goes to show the power we all have to make positive change happen in our community."
CBC
14-07-2025
- Business
- CBC
Hamilton will continue to hold urban boundary despite pitches for big housing projects
Hamilton's urban boundary will hold after council blocked two development requests that would've seen tens of thousands of homes eventually built on farmland. Planning committee considered applications Wednesday from two landowner groups to expand the city's official urban area for their proposed projects. Developers of the White Church Lands near the Hamilton airport have proposed building 7,600 homes, while the developers of the Elfrida Lands in Upper Stoney Creek are looking to build 40,000 homes, said Dave Heyworth, the city's acing director and senior advisor of strategic growth at the meeting. There would be a mix of detached, semi-detached and town houses to come in the next decades. Staff recommended councillors deny both applications because they would encroach on agricultural land and require more infrastructure than the city is able to provide or pay for in the coming years, said a report. That infrastructure would include bigger roads and sewers in and out of the development, for example. Allowing the developments, said staff, would also contradict what council, with support from the public, has said its plan is for Hamilton: to grow up, not out. "I think it will thwart our goal of increasing density inside the urban boundary as the city does have limited service capacity and this development would compete for those services," said Coun. Mark Tadeson, of the White Church proposal, which would be in his ward. Residents there, he said, are "overwhelmingly" against the development. 'We are a collaborative partner' The Elfrida development would be in both Tadeson and Coun. Brad Clark's wards. Clark said he's long been opposed to it and to "jump start" the development now, without first building up infrastructure, "puts the city in peril." In November 2021, the last term of council voted against expanding the urban boundary — the area developers would be allowed to build on. Elected officials made the decision after hearing from thousands of residents opposed to growth at the expense of farmland. Since then, the city has been focused on encouraging developers to build on underused urban land, such as on surface parking lots. In about five years, the city and council will review the urban boundary freeze to see if there's a need for more land to accommodate a growing population. Patrick Harrington, a lawyer for the White Church landowners, told planning committee Wednesday that it's only a matter of time before Hamilton would have to expand, so why not start now. "What we're asking you to do now is start the process with us," said Harrington. "We are a collaborative partner that can bear the cost of looking at these lands holistically, scientifically ... to provide information the city needs to make an informed decision." Housing for families needed The Elfrida group's lawyer Joe Hoffman made a similar pitch. "Hamilton needs both significant intensification and an urban boundary expansion," he said. "We're planning for the next 20 years, so we need to start the detailed planning process now." Expanding the urban boundary for these kinds of single family homes was supported by the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce CEO Greg Dunnett. He told the committee Hamilton is missing "workforce housing" for middle-income families, and downtown condos aren't what they're looking for. But both Coun. Cameron Kroetsch and Coun. Craig Cassar pushed back on the idea that the only way to ensure there's more housing for families is to allow suburban sprawl. Kroetsch noted the many vacant lots across downtown where housing could be built. Cassar added that strip malls with unused parking lots would also work. "Keep the urban boundary firm," he said. Council unanimously voted to deny the development applications, although those decisions will likely be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal, staff said.
The Guardian
14-07-2025
- General
- The Guardian
Waste disposal practices are harming the environment
Your article (Millions of tonnes of toxic sewage sludge spread on UK farmland every year, 7 July) gives some insight into the environmental impact of the practice and the paucity of regulatory control. The legal case had been made as far back as 2015 that the spreading of sewage sludge – which the water industry prefers to call 'biosolids' – should be brought under the potentially much tighter environmental permitting system that applies to the spreading of other industrial wastes applied to land for agricultural benefit. Not surprisingly, the very mention that sewage sludge be treated as a 'waste' drew strong resistance from water companies that feared a collapse in the market. However, this is only part of the story. The ban on dumping at sea, coupled with the move away from landfill, has seen a huge shift from putting waste in one place to smearing it in ever more discrete parcels over farmland and elsewhere, purportedly for ecological improvement. In additional to sewage sludge, there are construction waste soils, waste compost and anaerobic digestate, plus a range of non‑waste soil improvers deposited. Examples such as pig carcasses in compost on farmland testify to what some people will try to get away with if not properly regulated. While there may well be good examples of using treated waste to improve soil, the cumulative environmental burden of the range of practices is largely unchecked and GalvinFormer policy adviser, Environment Agency and Defra There is a £6m research project studying the use of pyrolysis on sewage sludge that should assist in sequestering carbon in the soil and which may reduce pollutants like Pfas – so-called 'forever chemicals'. The project undertaken by Thames Water, Ofwat and other collaborators aims to deliver a continuous flow system that could be widely deployed, and the research is due to complete in 2027. If successful, this technology would allow our sewage sludge to be used as an agricultural input while meeting our wider needs to reduce pollution and climate emissions. However, we will need to further invest in our water-treatment system. Can the privatised water industry meet the challenge?Andrew WoodOxford Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Telegraph
13-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
‘Is that what net zero should be about?' Farmland falls to solar gold-rush
When tenant farmer Nicholas Waller-Barrett decided to explore ways to boost his small potato farm and chip factory in Norfolk, solar panels were an obvious answer. A few of the energy-generating panels could, he thought, help provide more power to the farm, which employs nine people from the surrounding villages. But be careful what you wish for. Waller-Barrett's farm has been targeted for a massive solar plant, which will be called Glebe Farm, and now his landlord plans to take his land away, replacing potato crops with thousands of giant glass panels. The decision, backed by edicts from Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, favouring solar farms over food production on UK farmland, means his flourishing food business will shrink – and staff will be out of work. Meanwhile the distant landlord will be quids in, potentially quadrupling their rent with virtually no effort. 'It's like a bombshell hit us,' says Waller-Barrett, whose family has farmed the land at Horsford, north of Norwich, for seven decades. Waller-Barrett is not alone. All over the UK tenant farmers are being thrown off their land – much of it prime farmland – to make way for solar panels. Many other farmers who own their land are selling or leasing it to solar companies – all meaning it will no longer produce food. The reason is simple: farmland typically generates profits of a few hundred pounds per acre when cropped but three to four times that amount when under solar panels. Farming sacrificed for subsidies That solar income is generated by government subsidies which in turn are loaded on to consumer electricity bills – so the income is guaranteed, often for decades. It means money taken from consumers is funding the industrialisation of thousands of acres of prime farmland, converting it from producing food to generating energy. Waller-Barrett took the land over from his father and, at age 65, wants to hand it to his son, Carl, who has used the 235-acre farm's potato crop to establish a flourishing new business selling pre-prepared chips and roast spuds to restaurants. Now all that is in danger because of the rush for solar power. 'We don't own the land and our landlady wants to take away 88 acres for solar,' he says. 'We'd have to shrink the business which is terrible for the local economy, our suppliers, customers and staff.' All over Britain similar trends are at play. According to CPRE, formerly the Campaign to Protect Rural England, 59pc of England's largest solar farms are on once-productive farmland, while a third of the area they cover is classified as 'best and most versatile' (BMV) agricultural land, ideal for growing crops. CPRE's analysis shows that 827 hectares of this prized land has been covered by solar development – the equivalent to around 1,300 football pitches. Three solar farms, Sutton Bridge in Lincolnshire, Goosehall in East Cambridgeshire and Black Peak Farm in South Cambridgeshire, are located entirely on BMV farmland. They will provide energy for London, Birmingham and other major cities but will no longer feed people, campaigners say. Once covered in solar panels, even the best land effectively becomes sterile, apart from occasional sheep-grazing to keep the grass down. Roger Mortlock, CPRE chief executive, wants the Government to stop targeting farmland and instead ensure 60pc of solar panels are put on buildings or brownfield sites. 'We support net zero and renewable energy but we also want a thriving countryside and productive agriculture,' he says. Net zero first Waller-Barrett's potato fields are about to be turned into a solar farm by Pathfinder Clean Energy, a private company. A Planning Inspectorate decision, which approved the decision, makes clear how planners are putting Miliband's net zero targets before food production. Despite finding that 'the site has significant arable value' and that 'it would no longer be capable of providing such a function' if solar panels were installed, the planning inspector said these considerations were outweighed by the need to reach net zero and address the Government's 'climate emergency'. It said: 'The National Planning Policy Framework explains that the planning system should support the transition to a low-carbon future and should recognise that even small-scale projects can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 'The proposed development would make a valuable contribution to achieving these local and national goals.' Mark Kelly, of Pathfinder Clean Energy, says: 'The owners of Glebe Farm are themselves farmers, and their business – like many others – is under pressure from policy and environmental shifts affecting UK agriculture. 'The move to diversify through solar reflects a broader need for rural enterprises to remain viable amid shocks from policy changes, market pressures and increasingly unpredictable weather. The solar project also enables reinvestment into the local area, including potential new employment and community benefit initiatives.' Such official rulings, ensuring net zero targets are placed above food production, have sparked a gold-rush for solar developments across the UK, but especially in eastern counties, also including Suffolk, Essex and Lincolnshire, as well as in the South West. The scale of the impact could be huge. Miliband's plans include expanding solar capacity from about 20 gigawatts (GW) now to nearly 50GW by 2030 – and 70GW by 2035. That means covering thousands more acres of farmland in solar panels, mostly concentrated in sunnier southern England, accompanied by lost food production. George Dunn, chief executive of the Tenant Farmers Association, points to Sir Keir Starmer's pre-election pledge to protect farmers from rampant solar developments – a promise which, according to Dunn, has not been kept. 'The drive towards net zero cannot be the only consideration when deliberating over solar farms,' he says. There is, however, little balance in the areas targeted by developers. SolarQ, founded by David Rogers, a retired Oxford University ecology professor, says solar is clustering in England's South West and in eastern shires like Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincolnshire – and especially around substations. In Newark, for example – the constituency of Conservative MP Robert Jenrick – 9pc of the land is being covered in solar while Sleaford and North Hykeham, the constituency of Caroline Johnson, has lost about 7pc. In Selby, home to Labour MP Keir Mather, it's 5pc. A letter to the Prime Minister last week signed by 30 MPs and peers, and co-ordinated by SolarQ, warned that solar installations were 'being disproportionately sited on better quality farmland'. 'Planning free-for-all' Such warnings may be too late for the Sturdy family who have been working as tenants at Eden Farm in Old Malton, North Yorkshire, since 1954 – paying rent to a landowning trust. But the trust wants to take away half their land and turn it into a solar farm – a trend Emma Sturdy, who lives on the farm, refers to as the 'solar clearances'. 'The absence of a clear government strategy has created a planning free for all, and developers are rushing to cash in,' she says. Lincolnshire's farmland is among the most heavily targeted – despite being some of the UK's most productive. The county produces 30pc of our vegetables, 18pc of our poultry and 12pc of England's total agricultural output. Yet in Lincolnshire too, the planning inspectorate has consistently ranked food production below net zero in importance –approving over a dozen massive solar farms that will cover swathes of productive farm land in solar panels. One of them, the Cottam Solar Farm in West Lindsey, will cover around 1,300 hectares making it one of the UK's largest. Richard Tice, Reform's energy spokesman, who represents Skegness in Lincolnshire, says voters are becoming furious – making solar a key reason why Reform won the county elections and mayoralty in May. 'Solar farms blight the landscape,' he says. Solar Energy UK, the industry trade body, says only a tiny proportion of UK farmland was being converted to solar with minimal impacts on food production. Back in Norfolk, Waller-Barrett is worried about the jobs of his family and employees. 'We are going to lose half our output, most of our profits and potentially jobs. Is that what net zero should be about?'
