n By Duncan Milligan


The government has kicked off what it describes as a “national conversation” about land use. In reality its consultation is trying to juggle competing demands to produce a Land Use Framework later this year.


It’s all got to fit alongside a Farming Roadmap, also out later this year, and a Food Strategy policy, again, out later this year.


It will, it says, fit the pieces of the puzzle together and calm the competing demands on land use by creating a structure for the first time. Most think it is a decent idea, in principle at least.


The government has faced both cautious and enthusiastic support mingled with scepticism and a lot of ‘what happens next’ questions.


The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England welcomed a framework, if done well. “Land provides us with food, homes, energy and countless other things our society depends on. The framework should guide sustainable decisions that balance each of these demands.


“Done well, the new framework could help us build new homes and infrastructure in the most suitable and strategic locations, support nature’s recovery and help to tackle the climate crisis.”


It’s clear the government is trying to tread softly with some policy targets for changes of use while promoting it as a ‘light touch’ framework-only approach.


Announcing the consultation at the Royal Geographic Society recently, environment secretary Steve Reed said, “We must make the best use of the land around us” while delivering change to “grow the economy”.


The ultimate aim is “so we can grow the food to feed the nation. Build 1.5m new homes to address the housing crisis. Construct the energy infrastructure to secure home-grown clean power.


“And, underpinning all these ambitions, protect and restore nature here in one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth.” All while protecting food security.


Government, he said, will not dictate to anyone how to use their land, it was the start of a national conversation on land use. It will work with farmers, landowners and businesses to create a new approach to how land is used in a more strategic way for the benefit of people and nature.


But the department’s estimates – albeit pushed out to 2050, so a slow burn – see one in five hectares facing changes in England, a total of 1.6m hectares.


The standout figure is that nearly one in 10 current hectares (9 per cent) of agricultural land area could switch from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. That’s just over 750,000 hectares.


It estimates that another one in 20 current hectares – over 400,000 hectares – could switch to a combination of food and climate related benefits.


A further four per cent, around 360,000 hectares would need to incorporate woodland, with another one per cent needing smaller changes such as verge planting.


‘‘


My main concerns are food security and employment. If we do have to take some land out of production to meet our net zero targets, we have to ensure it is the right land that’s taken out of production


Steve Leniec,


Unite agricultural sub-sector chair and farm worker


Reed says the government is committed to maintaining food production with productivity improvements offsetting the loss of agricultural land.


He went as far as saying the government “has a cast-iron commitment to maintain long-term food security.” And that “the primary purpose of farming will always be to produce the food that feeds the nation”.


These are bold statements given Defra’s own figures show we are significantly less self-sufficient in food than we were 40 years ago. Its own ‘self-sufficiency ratio’ has been dropping in recent years for fresh vegetables (down to 53 per cent); fresh fruit is already down to 16 per cent.


Given that direction of travel, and the vulnerability of international agricultural supply chains it difficult to see how the government pulls that off with less


15 uniteLANDWORKER Summer 2025


agricultural land. Claiming increased productivity will fill the gap has more than a touch of ‘hopium’ about it.


In a world where our relationship to the land is visceral and gives a sense of place and even identity, a framework and a conversation around changing land use is long overdue. If nothing else it gives some rationality and an evidence base within which testing decisions can be made.


“My main concerns are food security and employment,” Steve Leniec, Unite agricultural sub-sector chair told Landworker. “If we do have to take some land out of production to meet our net zero targets, we have to ensure it is the right land that’s taken out of production.


“Where I work, we’ve taken one or two parcels of land out of production. Because of the price of commodities at the moment, these tracts of land weren’t economically productive, so it made sense to put them into green schemes.


“In one of the fields we’ve established wildflower meadows. The flowers will attract insects and pollinators, which will be a net positive for the environment, using land that wasn’t productive anyway.


“So we have to strike a balance between the environment and food production and jobs. The government is saying that enhanced productivity on the rest of the land will make up for the land taken out of production, but we also have to ensure we don’t over-farm that land – by using extra pesticides and fertilisers, for example – which would become unsustainable too.”


John Burbidge, secretary of Unite’s Tolpuddle branch would like to see a package of policies to tackle what he called the core problems caused by inflated rent and land values. “It’s extremely difficult to get into farming. It’s virtually impossible to make a viable return to earn a living from farming with current rents and land values.


“Farming and horticulture need to open up for new entrants. We need to be much more self-reliant, we need greater food security, and food which is affordable.


“We have people relying on food banks. The system is really broken.


“Branching into solar farms or other multi-functional uses is fair enough. But not on the best agricultural land.”


‘‘


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48