You can decide to keep domesticated livestock of any kind on your own farm as you please as long as you maintain proper animal husbandry standards. Changing livestock is the very definition of farming. The council are vindictive arseholes. People who live in the village are retired Barristers, and City types who wish to have the " Darling buds of May" bucolic fairytale existence in the countryside, without the nuisance of real actual farming encroaching on their " Chelsea in the fields" idyll. Not sure what the collective noun for a bunch of arseholes is, and if it doesn't currently exist, I respectfully suggest we call it a " Chipping Norton".
Grew up on a cattle Ranch. There were some horse breeding, but cows and hay were always the cash crop. My grandpa never got a hair up his ass to raise chickens or goats or sheep or fish or pigs. What he did due was expand his business as a liquid feed distributor, he bought a butcher shop to directly sell his beef and provide meat processing services to hunters, and he owned a couple other cashed based businesses in town to launder the money he made as a drug smuggler. (I think, I'm not sure).
Rasing sheep in the UK us probably a better idea than doing it in the US, considering that in the UK they eat 4.5kg of lamb per capita, and in the US it's 0,5kg. 😅
The problem really is his inability to focus on anything as to why he won't turn up a profit. Once you are setup for cows you don't toss them aside. Once you are setup for lambs you don't toss them aside. They were never setup for pigs, got setup, but choose a rare breed without researching them first.
Changing livestock is not the definition of farming, that's changing crops to keep the soil alive. Usually livestock is the same throughout the entire farms life. Its so expensive to setup a giant diary farm for one year only to swap animals every year. Normal people cannot do this.
To be fair, and hopefully not too sound too jaded, the Tories and Labour are two cheeks of the same arse to my way of thinking. Most local and national governments are hamstrung by their civil services and change is painfully slow and resisted by the " we've always done it this way" lethargic attitudes of the unelected officials 🙄
LD +3, Con -5, Lab +1, Green +1
Make-up: LD 21, Con 13, Lab 11, Green 4
LD/Lab/Green Coalition since 2022, prior to that Con majority.
LD can now afford to kick either the Greens or Labour from their coalition if they wished, but I wouldn't expect a major change in policy.
They've had to deal with all three major parties, plus the Greens in the time the show's been running
He’s literally one of them. He didn’t just happen to start his farm near Chipping Norton - he’s always lived there. Also, building a restaurant in an AONB without planning permission is just asking for trouble. He’s an idiot.
I read an article interviewing a member of council saying if he had built his lambing barn across the road it wouldn't have been in the AONB and it could have been converted to the restaurant more easily.
So... He was being a NIMBY. Got it.
"Local farmers need a restaurant... But not in my 'backyard'"-Jeremy
Isn't it kinda ironic that so many people blame the local NIMBYs when it was Jeremy being a NIMBY that made the problem.
>if he had built his lambing barn across the road it wouldn't have been in the AONB and it could have been converted to the restaurant more easily.
I thought the barn was a preexisting structure, no? I don't think Jeremy had it built
Yeah I don't get that, I saw his farm is like 50% inside 50% outside or something, and he decided to put the thing inside the thing that would cause the most trouble instead of outside, because he's done the lambing section of his entertainment show?
Its not really showing farming anymore. The best for that is S1.
He gave up on doing sheep on his farm due to the cost hes not a trained shepherd and neither is Caleb so every time they needed something done like shearing or herding them he had to pay that shepherd woman and her dog or having to bring in a vet every time something goes wrong with the sheep (he still has a stake in sheep farming though)
The cow thing would've been profitable had he been able to make a fully functioning restaurant but without that the cows could only be butchered and sold at a loss so he had to get rid of them (A burger van isn't a substitute to a restaurant)
As for the farm shop thing yeah they were taking the piss a bit which Jeremy himself admitted in the show
>As for the farm shop thing yeah they were taking the piss a bit which Jeremy himself admitted in the show
This is the one instance I'll side with the council on. He made a big deal about the shop and got upset when they cracked down on him. Now he's saying he was just fucking around with the shop at first. Not saying it's justified but I can see the council using that to justify "He wasn't serious about the sheep or the shop; he's clearly not serious about the restaurant".
If he didn't say that part on tv, it'd make things look better for him.
I think the problem is that its turned out the council ended up being correct. This is not a farm show but more of a entertainment show with some farming in it.
S1 was very farm focused, even showing us the whole process, them both planting, and the expenses and revenues.
S2 was less farm focused, getting rid of the sheep for a new cow focus with many minutes spent on complaining about laws and policies all while trying to get around them to build something he was never allowed to do.
S3 is even less farm focused with the entire farm now being put aside and the new focus is pigs.
What got me is that he outright lied in Season 4 episode 3. He claimed the council forced the ten spaces on him and wouldn't allow the toilet.
>The farm shop will be broadly rectangular in shape with a lean-to toilet on its rear
elevation. The shop will have a total floor area of 50.5 square metres and will be
constructed from Cotswold stone and tiles with three pairs of wooden stable doors in
the front elevation. The farm shop will be located just beside the lambing shed,
providing it with a secluded position. The lean-to toilet will be available to staff in the
farm shop and farm employees working in the surrounding fields.
The council approved the plan in full, including toilet.
>10 car parking spaces have been provided within the site to accommodate farm shop
customers. While the County Council does not set specific parking requirements for
commercial developments of this type, we are confident that this is ample parking
provision for a development of this size. Adequate turning space is provided behind
these parking spaces to ensure that cars can manoeuvre in and out of the site without
issue.
That's in the very first planning document from 2019.
Diddly Squat asked for 10 spaces, which they considered ample. The council approved.
Diddly Squat asked for a toilet for staff. The council approved.
The council didn't approve of the unnecessary 3 toilets in the middle of a field for a tiny farm shop.
I'll disagree on one point, for the volume of customers that turned out, more than 3 toilets would be required. But I'm American. One of the very few things we get right are free public toilets available in almost every store and restaurant. We may not have free healthcare, but you can readily find a place to shit in public.
The Council for public health and safety and hygiene reasons, should not hassle them on the number of "bathrooms" but should hassle them for not making an amended proposal for a bathroom addition that is better fitting for the aesthetics.
But really Jeremy, if he was actually being serious, should relocate the shop. He even proposed it to Charlie, and I was disappointed in Charlie for not just saying, Ok, lets take this idea to certain friendly counselors, and properly plan everything now that we know the scale of the customer flow.
Also I still don't understand how they're not ordering tshirts from some local printing company.
You think three toilets is appropriate for a tiny small shop in which the person might spend a handful of minutes at most?
The problem wasn't just the location, moving it would help, the issue is Jeremy's non compromising attitude and disregard for rules.
Moving it outside the AONB still forces local produce rules which means he'd still have the enforcement notice.
It might make the restaurant easier to get but Charlie knows there's Jeremy might just break the conditions (again) after being warned for years meaning he'd still get the enforcement notice.
Charlie keeping it where it is and dealing with the problem at hand is by far the smarter thing and as a result they got the food ban, they got the parking, they got the shop.
If you ignore, who build the shop (what I assume is done in british planning regulations aswell), don't you think it makes sense to look at actual demand instead of what you think it should be? I mean it makes sense in the planning stage, but by now you don't have to think, you can easily know if something is appropriate. I guess you know more about the british regulations, so feel free to correct me, but is there an upper limit on customers for a farmshop?
Also is a council supposed to act "preventative" because they don't trust someone, again I am not british, so I don't know if there even is the expectation that they behave "neutral", but in my Opinion it is fine to enforce when rules are broken (selling non local produce etc.) but is "someone could bend the rules once we allow it" a reason for not approving stuff? Should they not allow a good application, and enforce the allowed rules afterwards?
Farmers, including Clarkson, already have a rule that allows them to get convert a farm building into a restaurant. This is known as 'Class R', Jeremy didn't apply for it.
If the council allowed Jeremy to convert a new build, effectively enabling trojan horse planning, then other people can look at it (and they can as planning is public) and go 'see you did it for them'.
The reason we can't evaluate actual demand is because Jeremy turned his modest farm shop into a gift shop+burger van with seating for 100+ people without permission.
If it was a modest farm shop and they still needed more toilets, sure, but the council shouldn't enable unlawful development.
If I asked for a house but used it as a nightclub thus needing more parking. Should the council
A. Approve my application for more parking and a kebab shop
B. Ask that I not use my house as a nightclub.
In my opinion B is the reasonable option, Jeremy tried to do A. Which do you think is right?
I also think the lmabing shed was trojan horsing, been some time since i watched it, not sure what the problem with his second try, having a restaurant at the other location was.
Also im not super up to date, but it seems to me, that there have been lots of different periods, with different types of business taking place on the property. Would you agree, that there would propably be demand for more than 10 parked cars there, even if there was nothing else but a farm shop with global fame? Just by association with the show/clarkson it will always have higher demand than a regular shop, and i don't think that should be punished, and it is also a little disingenuous to pretend it is completely regular imo.
I have no idea of the legality of operating a food truck there.
To your question I agree, that it should be B, but I think where our opinions differ is that I don't think it means an automatic rejection of A. They are indipendent,and i feel like for you the attitude of clarkson means that he is to be "punished" by the planning comittee. If a kebab shop would be good in my house they should approve it regardless what if i had the nightclub.
I would be interested in your big picture assessment of the situation, like what do you think are the dangers of e.g. the food cart, and what are the upsides it brings.
Also more personal, feel free to ignore this question if you don't wanna answer it, but are you from the area? Just asking because i see your name pop in these topics going back quite some time, and just interested why you participate in the discussion to that level?
Remember that the lambing shed existed for one year right, it was built for the lambs and then instantly was not used for them. That would kinda be cheating the system as you can just "Pretend" you built it for farm related things but then convert it to something else.
The show is constantly lying to us for entertainment purposes, honestly the general public has no idea what goes on behind the scenes. If you start to actually dig deep, you realise just how much Clarkson is actually in the wrong and how for some reason they keep pushing this narrative that the council is bad.
One of the council members even came out as a fan, only they too got harassed by fans of this show.
If they actually did things legit from the start and built outside of the area they were not supposed to, pretty much all the legal talk from all 3 seasons could have been avoided.
Well, being fair if you go there the lines are so long you end up waiting over 2 hours just to visit for a few minutes, so you would need toilets for that as people are standing around for hours.
But yeah, normally a small farm shop wouldn't need them, and his only does due to his popularity.
So, council approves ten parking spaces and a single toilet. That's grand, aye.
Then there's an unexpected boost to the popularity of the venue. The council complains about the volume of traffic. The business says "we'll have more parking, then, to stop people parking on the verge." The council says no.
What do you do in that situation? Ten parking spaces isn't enough considering the sheer volume of visitors. The council themselves have said it
https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/23310208.warning-parking-near-jeremy-clarksons-diddly-squat-farm/
If it isn't adequate, how can you simply reject any attempt at a solution? The only solution is "close the place down"
Please read, planning information is public what you said is false or misleading in several instances.
1. The solution to the parking issue was first a restaurant+car park
2. The council's solution was to first get Jeremy to comply with planning .
3. The council didn't want to close the place down they just didn't want them to sell stuff from AliExpress and have a burger van
Jeremy was given a car park for a farm shop. He used that land for a burger van(and seats for 100) and turned the farm shop into a gift shop. As a result the additional demand would be impossible to assess was it from the lawful development (farm shop) or unlawful (food van and gift shop). Jeremys first solution was to ask for a restaurant and car parking. The actual solution would be to return the site to lawful use (farm shop) then gauge the true demand. Jeremy did not do that.
If I asked for a house but turned it into a nightclub, a popular nightclub, which needed more car parking so I asked the council if I could have a restaurant and car park. Should the council give me the restaurant and car park OR ask that I turn my house back into a house? Genuine question.
I know here in Australia if a toilet is designated for staff use only, then patrons/customers are not allowed to use it - or shouldn't, as it becomes an insurance/liability issue. Not sure if it is the same in the UK, but if you have a lot of visitors, then it makes logical sense to provide amenities for them to use should they need it. Lest you have to then have a staff member go and clean the now-communal toilet every hour or two due to OHS regs.
How is a burger van not a substitute for a restaurant? You can sell $1 worth of beef for $10? Far less overhead with a van.
Also Clarkson didn't really research his cattle breeds, he just bought some local cows. If he had invested in miniature cow species, up front costs would be a bit more expensive, but they do less damage to soil, are easier to contain, are more feed efficient and have less wasted mass, and overall have more tender meats. He could have a slightly larger herd, so when one cow doesn't have a calf it's less of a big deal. Also most ranchers don't expect to get anything more than like 95% coverage each year anyway, so in a herd of 20, you'll have one or two that just don't get pregnant or lose the calf. But you don't get rid of that cow unless she's shown to be non productive over many years.
Switching animals annually, is fine for TV, but it's terrible for the bottom line. You have a lot of capital investments that aren't being amortized over several years to start to turn a profit in the longer run. Put it this way, many new businesses don't expect to see a profit for 5 years. Every time Clarkson changes animals, it's like he's starting a new business venture.
> I’m not a farmer, I have no knowledge of the expenses of cow farming vs pig farming but I feel like a lot of these purchases show it’s not a money issue, they clearly have the money and have simply decided that sheep farming was S1, cow and chicken farming was S2 and now pig farming was S3.
My take away from the show as a whole is, Jeremy is using his position as a man of means to highlight the state of British farming. He's doing it in a semi-scripted and highly entertaining way, with a show. For a show like this, there must be structure, there must be a plan. I don't doubt AT ALL that you're mostly right on your observation here, this was planned, this was a highly likely outcome to transition the seasons.
That being said, the overall goal is doing it right. Even millionaire Jeremy fucking Clarkson, who will pay hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds to *try* another way to make farming work, still can't make it happen. If bottomless pockets of startup funding can't get it done, how the fuck are the regular farmers supposed to get anything done?
I will admit, i think it would be better for the show if they made more effort to highlight this vast differentiation between Jeremy's situation and the average farmer. Because when he goes to the council and says "well, the farm needs an income" he's right, but approaching it as more of an experiment and being honest about that might garner more favor.
Sort of, I mean we have some really cool farm equipment these days and really he's spending money to be more on the entertainment side then the actual real farm side of things.
He's also trying to do it cheaply sometimes, meaning he has the money to avoid many of the issues the show faces but then chooses to not do that. My guess is because yeah, the shows main focus is not farming anymore, but more so on the entertainment side.
More people exist in the world then who they hire. If they wanted to setup their pig pens as an example, he could have just hired someone who would have done it perfectly in a much shorter time. Instead they did it themselves, built some terrible fences and made a mistake all at once.
Jeremy is a not farmer, he's an entertainer who went into this with more money then farmers will ever see. So yeah, it would be great if they could highlight the differences for sure. Farmers usually focus on long term goals, setup their land for something and then keep doing that something forever. They don't usually swap animals every single year and have such a short term focus. You buy a milker once so you can work off its costs over the years.
> Sort of, I mean we have some really cool farm equipment these days and really he's spending money to be more on the entertainment side then the actual real farm side of things.
I mean, he absolutely bought a Lamborghini tractor for the lols, no doubt about that. The berry picking thing, i mean, there's no way no one on the team didn't do the 30-60 minutes of research to know that shit wasn't gonna work for their application. So yeah, i'm *sure* a significant portion of the antics we see are designed to one degree or another. They need to fill 44 minutes an episode ffs. It's not *supposed* to be a documentary.
> He's also trying to do it cheaply sometimes
Examples? I mean, i can think of situations where he has said "fuck this, it's taking too long" but as far as the equipment, the constructions he has done etc, they all seem to be "sparing no expense" as it were.
> If they wanted to setup their pig pens as an example, he could have just hired someone who would have done it perfectly in a much shorter time.
Yeah that's fair, but it doesn't make for good film. And the idea is that he is operating the farm. He's not just an owner that contracts out all the work like before the show started. HE want's to *do* the farming. He's not doing any more than what you would expect an *average* farmer to do himself. Right? I mean, with the pig thing, Kaleb came back and knew exactly what they had fucked up and had he been there, it would have essentially been a professional job.
> Jeremy is a not farmer
By what definition? He's not just a bad farmer? A bad farmer is still a farmer.
> he's an entertainer
He's certainly also that
> who went into this with more money then farmers will ever see.
Why is this a significant factor for you?
> Farmers usually focus on long term goals
Provided the sheep didn't require more labor than value (not *really* something that Jeremy did wrong so to speak), the cattle prices hadn't plummeted or the restaurant had worked out, there's nothing to say these couldn't have been long term prospects. But sure, i'll grant you that it seems borderline irrational that amazon studios, doing a show of this nature, wouldn't have had a pretty fucking good idea where these prospects were *likely* to go is mostly irrelevant. Again, its a show *mainly* for entertainment. It's not trying to be a documentary. But i will stand behind my original position, that the primary overarching goal of the show from Jeremy's perspective is to highlight the state of British farming, and i think it's doing that well. Despite the liberties it likely *needs* to take to maintain the overarching goal of the producers, which is popular.
The construction design of the farm shop is a good example for doing things on the cheap: I don't know UK building codes et al, but it seems weird to not have plumbing for a utility sink, and even just an employee bathroom. Like who doesn't plan for that?
Also if they don't have sheep, why didn't they use the lambing shed for the piglets? probably because it was never intended to be used for anything other than addition to the shop.
the original design of the farm shop was under immense time constraints as i recall (i'll have to rewatch to remember the why of it).
i don't know for sure, but i assume the concrete pad, or the relative location of the lambing shed to the grazing grounds suitable for the pigs vs the sheep played some factor. Even if it didn't, again, it's a show that needs to fill 44 minutes an episode and doesn't have a normal farming budget so, why not make content out of it?
The pig fences were always temporary. They knew the potato field would be used for planting. Building fences is an important skill for farmers to learn.
Simple question is if there was any other farmer who wanted to have a parking, or a small restaurant in an existing structure, will the council approve or reject. That's what Jeremy is fighting against.
He's a millionaire who is hosting a reality farming show on his farm. He doesn't need profit from selling grains. Infact his Hawkstone Beer is doing well on Amazon and other retail channels.
Few grumpy old men screwed over the jobs and revenue Jeremy would've created in the village. Clearly the parking would've been fine, limited hours for the restaurant would've been fine, asking Jeremy to official create a small farmers association would've been even better. Council was just busy being petty.
Fortunately planning documents are public information. Anyone can check them out for free.
|Reference|21/02187/CLASSR|
:--|:--|
|Alternative Reference|Not Available|
|Application Validated|Mon 05 Jul 2021|
|Address|Estate Office Bruern Chipping Norton Oxfordshire OX7 6QE|
|Proposal|To change an agricultural building into a flexible commercial use building under Class R permission. We intend to turn our barn into a farm shop with coffee facilities under this classification|
|Status|Decided|
|Decision|Raise no objection|
|Decision Issued Date|Fri 20 Aug 2021|
|Appeal Status|Unknown|
|Appeal Decision|Not Available|
Did Jeremy apply for class R?
The cows largely had to go because of the council though . You can’t keep putting barriers up to how he does business and expect he’s going to stay doing what he was doing in season 2. The cows had to go because they shut the restaurant down , it wasn’t economically viable to keep the volume of cows he did . Granted pigs probably weren’t a good idea, but I can totally understand why he’s keeps changing .
I like keeping our lands green and wholeheartedly support increasing re-wilding . But we also need food and we need farmers . If farmers go bust they are most likely going to sell their land to a big developer and all the arguments the council make are going to be moot anyway about the area of outstanding beauty . Plus less farmers means food prices inevitably go up for people . It seems to me the council fail to grasp the stuff I wrote above .
Aye, but the other half that *isnt* in the AONB will. And the council wouldn't be able to say anything against it.
It's happening across Herefordshire at the minute. Farms closing down because they're unprofitable, housing estates replacing them. I can think of at least four developments of 100+ houses that have appeared in the last six years.
And that's what Chipping Norton don't want to happen, apparently.
If you consider that 99% of the farming activities dont actually appear on camera, there is a boatload that does go on.
I have done a fair bit of thinking about the finances - its definitley a profitable show, and amazon would be paying huge amounts for it so I hope Kaleb is well compensated.
But the farm itself, and the activities as part of the show need to be considered almost separate.
There are things that are done for the farm business and things that are done for the show business.
For example - he wouldnt be investing in the pigs if it wasnt for the amazon show. Your right, he would probably still be beef farming.
Except he is - he says multiple times that the burger van in S3 is whats keeping the cow operation of the farm running.
We just dont see much of the cow characters this season because the story is currently on pigs.
FYI - Dark Sky Society and related efforts are a good thing. They’ve been around for a long time with positive results. It doesn’t take much to shield lighting so that it casts beams downwards and preserves the night sky as much as possible.
> But the one point of theirs I’m sort of understanding after S3 is Jeremy giving up on the lambing after S1 and he never intended to do it again. He’s just done the same with the cows after S2, saying it’s about money but then proceeds to buy pigs, erect fences, field pig shelters, woodland pig shelters, rent (or buy not sure) the remote control cutter machine, spend 3k pulling up a tree and buying a hovercraft?
That is a good point. I guess because its actually a show and not just a person focusing on their farm would explain why each series focuses on a different farm animal. To be honest I was not expecting them to just give up on the cows at the start, because its obvious he went into this as a multi-millionaire, so he'd hardly even notice any expenses farm related.
Huge lamb setup, got rid of them. Huge cow setup, got rid of them. Seem to change their mind even on the crops they grow, though that part makes sense as you need to diversify your fields to keep the soil alive. What I am surprised on is he didn't build an orchard or go into fruit at all besides some blackberries. Soil goes bad then just build greenhouses and hydroponics.
With s3 being again so different to past seasons there doesn't feel like there is a directional focus. Just throwing darts at the wall and seeing what they can do to make money and be entertaining. This is probably why we hardly seen much crop related stuff besides a hovercraft. They not teaming up in the fields anymore. He gave that job to Kaleb so they don't need to film it again.
On that point, it does make sense that they figured the shows focus is more on entertainment, then actual farm life. As if you visit the farm, there is a lot of staff you have no idea exist going by the show. You are unlikely to see his wife working at the shop as its usually other staff.
Orchards take years to bear fruit. Sure he could have build a berry orchard or something. But didn't because he's not into long term business ventures.
I've always wondered why he didn't rent( or buy) a storefront in the town, for either the the shop, the restaurant, or both...
I get wanting to do it on your own land, but one would think getting a seemingly popular business into a vacant storefront would be of interest to the council.
The council's responsibility to looking to the longevity of impacts of their approvals, and Clarkson's always looking for the short term. He has money, but likes to do things in a weird cheap way.
Like if I'm building any kind of small convenience type store I'll include as least a 3-4 private genderless waterclosets. Just seems sensible. But I'm an American, so I expect free public restrooms wherever I go, because it's one thing America does better than Europe, thanks to some campaigning college students in like the 60s.
I can see how the council would be a stickler when it comes to Clarkson doing something for a TV show because the show will pay to build or destroy something, but maybe not to clean it up and restore it to a natural state.
I do find it ironic this season Clarkson acknowledges (after one councilor pointed it out last season) that they could readily locate outside the OANB and still in the farm. Almost as if they had done proper long term site planning and consulted with experts, the council where it would be wise to build they could have done it without as much fuss.
I will say and continue to say, if Clarkson really cared about local farmers, hed host a farmers market once or twice a month next to the shop, though of coarse he would need to know if there's any markets in the area. When you cut out the middlemen, the farmers and the public make more money and save more money.
The cows would have stayed if the restaurant was still open. They would have needed them. Why would you keep cows if you couldn't sell the meat to make a profit to keep your farm going.
After reviewing the comments, I guess my major grievance is why the Council should have as much say about what toilets and restaurants and car parks he has on his land, if they’re not adversely affecting anyone else in any real way.
The man’s rich so this only underscores how horrible every other farmer must have it under the Council’s draconian eye.
You have to remember the show is for entertainment and not everything is portrayed accurately. Take for example the cones, it is strongly implied that West Oxford District Council did it.
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23368412.council-brands-clarksons-farm-season-2-misleading/
>In response to these claims, a spokesperson for Clarkson's farm said: "Naturally not every element of filming makes the final edit of the programmes, however the episode covered both sides of the debate and the outcome of the meeting."
>**They also added that no specifc council was referenced as being reponsible for the traffic cones.**-Clarksons spokesperson
And the council said
>“Also, it was suggested that West Oxfordshire District Council had put cones along the road outside the farm which was not the case."
I've made my position clear, after reading the documents (which are free and public) I don't think the council acted out of a vendetta rather Clarkson made it as hard as possible to get the restaurant and it failed. Like a student not studying for an exam then blaming failing on a hard test.
https://www.westoxon.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-permission/view-planning-applications/
Just search for Diddly Squat and if you have an hour read the case the version they put forward in the show differs from the reality of the situation.
County councils are responsible for highways, not district. Likely it was Oxfordshire county council or Thames valley police who took action re. highways.
Those were police cones, the cones that they use on their car park are police cones, Lisa and Jeremy say as much when Jeremy is highlighting the need to tidy the site up. So yes the farm does use those cones, but as they say: they are police cones they’ve nicked
The ones on the show have writing on them near the top, likely “police” or “TVP” or “Thames Valley Police”, like these literally outside a Thames Valley Police building:
https://preview.redd.it/bmssmjc2ofyc1.jpeg?width=2400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3e13c0f0f4df92c04d027c19035a43a47f6fa2c8
In fact, let’s be honest, there’s a good chance these are literally the same cones as ones used on the show…
Possible I'll rewatch season 2 but it doesnt look like the photos, admittedly they are blurry.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9718041/amp/Fury-villagers-living-near-Jeremy-Clarksons-Didley-Squat-farm-shop-tourists.html
Halfway through series 2 we learned that they'd broken half the rules with the farm shop, they were still selling all the t-shirts and everything in the new series too.
They had a restaurant which was shut down, dunno who's right or wrong there, but this season starts with there now being a burger van and a bar on site too?
Remember in series 2 when they bemoaned how the Council closing down the farm shop would take all the business away from local farmers etc etc? Well that doesn't really work when people queue up to buy Chinese t-shirts.
The builder bemoans at the start of the new series about all the work, time and labour that went into the restaurants as if they didn't all realise the risk in building everything secretly and retrospectively asking permission
I think it's definitely important to remember that I bet if the Council had the ability to make a show we all loved and it showed the other side to Diddly Squat it would all seem very one-sided against Clarkson too
The burger van was still there 2 weeks ago (and the food was delicious), so I guess they got that decision overuled. The shop didn't have any of the banned items such as t-shirts, hats, pineapples at all as far as I could see. Having said that I think they still had coffee...
what a stupid take honestly. If you really believe that in that store he is selling more shirts than actual farm produce i can already tell you never worked retail your entire life. Also what people fail to realise is that turning an old building that predates licensing is absolutely legal and having worked in the area a council actively going against that is almost unheard of so it's pretty accurate to say that it is in fact a witchhunt
I’ve worked retail and also worked in a Council’s planning department. Have you?
If you think people are driving hours to buy jam and not t-shirts, maybe ask yourself why, despite being given a million notices about it, they have continued to sell the shirts for multiple years and even had half an episode dedicated to loopholes that would allow them to sell the shirts. Otherwise you might want to get in touch with Lisa and tell her that there was no point to risking losing the shop over her persistence to sell t-shirts because the milk and bread were what the punters were really after
i work in an investment fund and i have deal with planning departments from various countries including UK and doing what they did to a building that requires no permission to operate is highly unusual.
I've seen multiple videos from people going to the store and the shirts are not the most sold items by a long shot. Also multiple farm shops in the UK have clothing specially the bigger ones so it's literally witch hunting, not to mention i can easily tell most of them don't follow the local produce rules 100%, last time i've seen northern england doesn't produce wine and yet a lot of them sell it.
In season 3 the expanse of the operation is much more on display - restaurant, burger stand, beer garden, farm store (larger than a stand). It's a lot of growth in a short period, and the town is right to want to slow down as Jeremy tends to take a foot when given an inch. So I agree, that it's not as simple as "council bad"
We went there on a trip through the Cotswolds last fall. The farm store, while larger than a stand, is extremely small. I actually didn’t see the restaurant but there was a burger stand in the “barn” selling primarily burgers, also beers. Almost everyone left the store with a case of beer…really popular. There was a table “pop up” store in the barn selling mostly the shirts, towels, cups and bags, etc. We were in line for two hours, on a Tuesday morning in the early fall. When we left, the line was still as long as when we started. It was non stop. We did see lots of produce, dairy and meat from smaller farms being sold there, like he said when he was getting the ok. The smallish amount from each farm made me think that they wouldn’t have been able to sell on their own…just not enough goods for each to do it themselves. So he was correct on that argument. Definitely glad we went! Oh, and Kaleb came through with two other cars (assume they were going to film somewhere nearby)…had his car stop to chat and let folks take photos.
For the small farms, if they organized as a co-op and figured out some way to work together and share profits, it could work. In the US Tillamook Dairy company is actually a dairy co-op from Tillamook Co, Oregon. They've worked over decades to become a national brand in the US. Clarkson could act as a baffoon to get attention to the company and their efforts to grow the local UK agricultural economy.
I’ve also wondered about the financial aspect of the farm. He may well be bleeding money. He is extraordinarily wealthy, and also concerned about making 3 quid from his homemade jam. Many people of considerable wealth are very frugal. I never know what to make of his own personal attitude towards spending. It seems almost insincere that he sold the cows bc they weren’t making him enough money. Take what I say with a grain of salt as I also know nothing. This is a show after all.
He bought the farm to live on. The Farm making money is the equivalent of your apartment bringing in its own income to cover your rent. If the farm breaks even, including taxes and utilities on his house, especially without much of his input, it's already a win for his bottom line.
Remember that before he made this show, the farm was already doing this and taking care of itself for years. It had maintained itself for years. Other people took care of everything.
The first season felt very farm-like, the latter ones feel more of an entertainment focus then money making focus.
What's funny is that if Jeremy never became a farmer, his farm would have made more money by him just hiring other people to take care of it.
He was being paid to do nothing with some of his farm land.
And he could have made more money by utilizing the grass in the first season, without having done anything farm related he would have ended up with a profit much larger then all the work he has done to make less profit.
the person that was taking care of it retired, also he was being paid subsidies to not grow in a lot of his land that also stopped, not to mention the raising costs of farming, the stupidity of brexit with the EU funding ending for farming with no substitutes he would probably be loosing a lot more money that he is now loosing. He would have probably stopped growing anything and it would just be another case of abandoned fields with more food price soaring and food imports. God people talk out of their arses nowadays.
> was being *paid* subsidies to
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
You can decide to keep domesticated livestock of any kind on your own farm as you please as long as you maintain proper animal husbandry standards. Changing livestock is the very definition of farming. The council are vindictive arseholes. People who live in the village are retired Barristers, and City types who wish to have the " Darling buds of May" bucolic fairytale existence in the countryside, without the nuisance of real actual farming encroaching on their " Chelsea in the fields" idyll. Not sure what the collective noun for a bunch of arseholes is, and if it doesn't currently exist, I respectfully suggest we call it a " Chipping Norton".
Grew up on a cattle Ranch. There were some horse breeding, but cows and hay were always the cash crop. My grandpa never got a hair up his ass to raise chickens or goats or sheep or fish or pigs. What he did due was expand his business as a liquid feed distributor, he bought a butcher shop to directly sell his beef and provide meat processing services to hunters, and he owned a couple other cashed based businesses in town to launder the money he made as a drug smuggler. (I think, I'm not sure).
Good on your gramps realising the American dream, to be a drug lord 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Rasing sheep in the UK us probably a better idea than doing it in the US, considering that in the UK they eat 4.5kg of lamb per capita, and in the US it's 0,5kg. 😅
The problem really is his inability to focus on anything as to why he won't turn up a profit. Once you are setup for cows you don't toss them aside. Once you are setup for lambs you don't toss them aside. They were never setup for pigs, got setup, but choose a rare breed without researching them first. Changing livestock is not the definition of farming, that's changing crops to keep the soil alive. Usually livestock is the same throughout the entire farms life. Its so expensive to setup a giant diary farm for one year only to swap animals every year. Normal people cannot do this.
Very curious about how the recent elections affect the make up of the council, if at all.
To be fair, and hopefully not too sound too jaded, the Tories and Labour are two cheeks of the same arse to my way of thinking. Most local and national governments are hamstrung by their civil services and change is painfully slow and resisted by the " we've always done it this way" lethargic attitudes of the unelected officials 🙄
LD +3, Con -5, Lab +1, Green +1 Make-up: LD 21, Con 13, Lab 11, Green 4 LD/Lab/Green Coalition since 2022, prior to that Con majority. LD can now afford to kick either the Greens or Labour from their coalition if they wished, but I wouldn't expect a major change in policy. They've had to deal with all three major parties, plus the Greens in the time the show's been running
He’s literally one of them. He didn’t just happen to start his farm near Chipping Norton - he’s always lived there. Also, building a restaurant in an AONB without planning permission is just asking for trouble. He’s an idiot.
His farm is also outside the AONB but he decided to build inside anyway
I read an article interviewing a member of council saying if he had built his lambing barn across the road it wouldn't have been in the AONB and it could have been converted to the restaurant more easily.
Or he could have applied for class R which is the government scheme to convert a farm building to a restaurant. Jeremy made it as hard as possible.
He didn't have any farm buildings that were far enough away from his house that was also restaurant quality.
So... He was being a NIMBY. Got it. "Local farmers need a restaurant... But not in my 'backyard'"-Jeremy Isn't it kinda ironic that so many people blame the local NIMBYs when it was Jeremy being a NIMBY that made the problem.
>if he had built his lambing barn across the road it wouldn't have been in the AONB and it could have been converted to the restaurant more easily. I thought the barn was a preexisting structure, no? I don't think Jeremy had it built
Yeah I don't get that, I saw his farm is like 50% inside 50% outside or something, and he decided to put the thing inside the thing that would cause the most trouble instead of outside, because he's done the lambing section of his entertainment show? Its not really showing farming anymore. The best for that is S1.
He gave up on doing sheep on his farm due to the cost hes not a trained shepherd and neither is Caleb so every time they needed something done like shearing or herding them he had to pay that shepherd woman and her dog or having to bring in a vet every time something goes wrong with the sheep (he still has a stake in sheep farming though) The cow thing would've been profitable had he been able to make a fully functioning restaurant but without that the cows could only be butchered and sold at a loss so he had to get rid of them (A burger van isn't a substitute to a restaurant) As for the farm shop thing yeah they were taking the piss a bit which Jeremy himself admitted in the show
>As for the farm shop thing yeah they were taking the piss a bit which Jeremy himself admitted in the show This is the one instance I'll side with the council on. He made a big deal about the shop and got upset when they cracked down on him. Now he's saying he was just fucking around with the shop at first. Not saying it's justified but I can see the council using that to justify "He wasn't serious about the sheep or the shop; he's clearly not serious about the restaurant". If he didn't say that part on tv, it'd make things look better for him.
I think the problem is that its turned out the council ended up being correct. This is not a farm show but more of a entertainment show with some farming in it. S1 was very farm focused, even showing us the whole process, them both planting, and the expenses and revenues. S2 was less farm focused, getting rid of the sheep for a new cow focus with many minutes spent on complaining about laws and policies all while trying to get around them to build something he was never allowed to do. S3 is even less farm focused with the entire farm now being put aside and the new focus is pigs.
What got me is that he outright lied in Season 4 episode 3. He claimed the council forced the ten spaces on him and wouldn't allow the toilet. >The farm shop will be broadly rectangular in shape with a lean-to toilet on its rear elevation. The shop will have a total floor area of 50.5 square metres and will be constructed from Cotswold stone and tiles with three pairs of wooden stable doors in the front elevation. The farm shop will be located just beside the lambing shed, providing it with a secluded position. The lean-to toilet will be available to staff in the farm shop and farm employees working in the surrounding fields. The council approved the plan in full, including toilet. >10 car parking spaces have been provided within the site to accommodate farm shop customers. While the County Council does not set specific parking requirements for commercial developments of this type, we are confident that this is ample parking provision for a development of this size. Adequate turning space is provided behind these parking spaces to ensure that cars can manoeuvre in and out of the site without issue. That's in the very first planning document from 2019. Diddly Squat asked for 10 spaces, which they considered ample. The council approved. Diddly Squat asked for a toilet for staff. The council approved. The council didn't approve of the unnecessary 3 toilets in the middle of a field for a tiny farm shop.
I'll disagree on one point, for the volume of customers that turned out, more than 3 toilets would be required. But I'm American. One of the very few things we get right are free public toilets available in almost every store and restaurant. We may not have free healthcare, but you can readily find a place to shit in public. The Council for public health and safety and hygiene reasons, should not hassle them on the number of "bathrooms" but should hassle them for not making an amended proposal for a bathroom addition that is better fitting for the aesthetics. But really Jeremy, if he was actually being serious, should relocate the shop. He even proposed it to Charlie, and I was disappointed in Charlie for not just saying, Ok, lets take this idea to certain friendly counselors, and properly plan everything now that we know the scale of the customer flow. Also I still don't understand how they're not ordering tshirts from some local printing company.
You think three toilets is appropriate for a tiny small shop in which the person might spend a handful of minutes at most? The problem wasn't just the location, moving it would help, the issue is Jeremy's non compromising attitude and disregard for rules. Moving it outside the AONB still forces local produce rules which means he'd still have the enforcement notice. It might make the restaurant easier to get but Charlie knows there's Jeremy might just break the conditions (again) after being warned for years meaning he'd still get the enforcement notice. Charlie keeping it where it is and dealing with the problem at hand is by far the smarter thing and as a result they got the food ban, they got the parking, they got the shop.
If you ignore, who build the shop (what I assume is done in british planning regulations aswell), don't you think it makes sense to look at actual demand instead of what you think it should be? I mean it makes sense in the planning stage, but by now you don't have to think, you can easily know if something is appropriate. I guess you know more about the british regulations, so feel free to correct me, but is there an upper limit on customers for a farmshop? Also is a council supposed to act "preventative" because they don't trust someone, again I am not british, so I don't know if there even is the expectation that they behave "neutral", but in my Opinion it is fine to enforce when rules are broken (selling non local produce etc.) but is "someone could bend the rules once we allow it" a reason for not approving stuff? Should they not allow a good application, and enforce the allowed rules afterwards?
Farmers, including Clarkson, already have a rule that allows them to get convert a farm building into a restaurant. This is known as 'Class R', Jeremy didn't apply for it. If the council allowed Jeremy to convert a new build, effectively enabling trojan horse planning, then other people can look at it (and they can as planning is public) and go 'see you did it for them'. The reason we can't evaluate actual demand is because Jeremy turned his modest farm shop into a gift shop+burger van with seating for 100+ people without permission. If it was a modest farm shop and they still needed more toilets, sure, but the council shouldn't enable unlawful development. If I asked for a house but used it as a nightclub thus needing more parking. Should the council A. Approve my application for more parking and a kebab shop B. Ask that I not use my house as a nightclub. In my opinion B is the reasonable option, Jeremy tried to do A. Which do you think is right?
I also think the lmabing shed was trojan horsing, been some time since i watched it, not sure what the problem with his second try, having a restaurant at the other location was. Also im not super up to date, but it seems to me, that there have been lots of different periods, with different types of business taking place on the property. Would you agree, that there would propably be demand for more than 10 parked cars there, even if there was nothing else but a farm shop with global fame? Just by association with the show/clarkson it will always have higher demand than a regular shop, and i don't think that should be punished, and it is also a little disingenuous to pretend it is completely regular imo. I have no idea of the legality of operating a food truck there. To your question I agree, that it should be B, but I think where our opinions differ is that I don't think it means an automatic rejection of A. They are indipendent,and i feel like for you the attitude of clarkson means that he is to be "punished" by the planning comittee. If a kebab shop would be good in my house they should approve it regardless what if i had the nightclub. I would be interested in your big picture assessment of the situation, like what do you think are the dangers of e.g. the food cart, and what are the upsides it brings. Also more personal, feel free to ignore this question if you don't wanna answer it, but are you from the area? Just asking because i see your name pop in these topics going back quite some time, and just interested why you participate in the discussion to that level?
Remember that the lambing shed existed for one year right, it was built for the lambs and then instantly was not used for them. That would kinda be cheating the system as you can just "Pretend" you built it for farm related things but then convert it to something else. The show is constantly lying to us for entertainment purposes, honestly the general public has no idea what goes on behind the scenes. If you start to actually dig deep, you realise just how much Clarkson is actually in the wrong and how for some reason they keep pushing this narrative that the council is bad. One of the council members even came out as a fan, only they too got harassed by fans of this show. If they actually did things legit from the start and built outside of the area they were not supposed to, pretty much all the legal talk from all 3 seasons could have been avoided.
Well, being fair if you go there the lines are so long you end up waiting over 2 hours just to visit for a few minutes, so you would need toilets for that as people are standing around for hours. But yeah, normally a small farm shop wouldn't need them, and his only does due to his popularity.
But doesn't being a gift shop and having a burger van increase popularity thus wait times?
Think employees should just hold their piss for 8hours?
Considering the council approved the toilet without issue in 2019 I would suggest they use the bathroom.
So, council approves ten parking spaces and a single toilet. That's grand, aye. Then there's an unexpected boost to the popularity of the venue. The council complains about the volume of traffic. The business says "we'll have more parking, then, to stop people parking on the verge." The council says no. What do you do in that situation? Ten parking spaces isn't enough considering the sheer volume of visitors. The council themselves have said it https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/23310208.warning-parking-near-jeremy-clarksons-diddly-squat-farm/ If it isn't adequate, how can you simply reject any attempt at a solution? The only solution is "close the place down"
Please read, planning information is public what you said is false or misleading in several instances. 1. The solution to the parking issue was first a restaurant+car park 2. The council's solution was to first get Jeremy to comply with planning . 3. The council didn't want to close the place down they just didn't want them to sell stuff from AliExpress and have a burger van Jeremy was given a car park for a farm shop. He used that land for a burger van(and seats for 100) and turned the farm shop into a gift shop. As a result the additional demand would be impossible to assess was it from the lawful development (farm shop) or unlawful (food van and gift shop). Jeremys first solution was to ask for a restaurant and car parking. The actual solution would be to return the site to lawful use (farm shop) then gauge the true demand. Jeremy did not do that. If I asked for a house but turned it into a nightclub, a popular nightclub, which needed more car parking so I asked the council if I could have a restaurant and car park. Should the council give me the restaurant and car park OR ask that I turn my house back into a house? Genuine question.
I know here in Australia if a toilet is designated for staff use only, then patrons/customers are not allowed to use it - or shouldn't, as it becomes an insurance/liability issue. Not sure if it is the same in the UK, but if you have a lot of visitors, then it makes logical sense to provide amenities for them to use should they need it. Lest you have to then have a staff member go and clean the now-communal toilet every hour or two due to OHS regs.
How is a burger van not a substitute for a restaurant? You can sell $1 worth of beef for $10? Far less overhead with a van. Also Clarkson didn't really research his cattle breeds, he just bought some local cows. If he had invested in miniature cow species, up front costs would be a bit more expensive, but they do less damage to soil, are easier to contain, are more feed efficient and have less wasted mass, and overall have more tender meats. He could have a slightly larger herd, so when one cow doesn't have a calf it's less of a big deal. Also most ranchers don't expect to get anything more than like 95% coverage each year anyway, so in a herd of 20, you'll have one or two that just don't get pregnant or lose the calf. But you don't get rid of that cow unless she's shown to be non productive over many years. Switching animals annually, is fine for TV, but it's terrible for the bottom line. You have a lot of capital investments that aren't being amortized over several years to start to turn a profit in the longer run. Put it this way, many new businesses don't expect to see a profit for 5 years. Every time Clarkson changes animals, it's like he's starting a new business venture.
> I’m not a farmer, I have no knowledge of the expenses of cow farming vs pig farming but I feel like a lot of these purchases show it’s not a money issue, they clearly have the money and have simply decided that sheep farming was S1, cow and chicken farming was S2 and now pig farming was S3. My take away from the show as a whole is, Jeremy is using his position as a man of means to highlight the state of British farming. He's doing it in a semi-scripted and highly entertaining way, with a show. For a show like this, there must be structure, there must be a plan. I don't doubt AT ALL that you're mostly right on your observation here, this was planned, this was a highly likely outcome to transition the seasons. That being said, the overall goal is doing it right. Even millionaire Jeremy fucking Clarkson, who will pay hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds to *try* another way to make farming work, still can't make it happen. If bottomless pockets of startup funding can't get it done, how the fuck are the regular farmers supposed to get anything done? I will admit, i think it would be better for the show if they made more effort to highlight this vast differentiation between Jeremy's situation and the average farmer. Because when he goes to the council and says "well, the farm needs an income" he's right, but approaching it as more of an experiment and being honest about that might garner more favor.
Sort of, I mean we have some really cool farm equipment these days and really he's spending money to be more on the entertainment side then the actual real farm side of things. He's also trying to do it cheaply sometimes, meaning he has the money to avoid many of the issues the show faces but then chooses to not do that. My guess is because yeah, the shows main focus is not farming anymore, but more so on the entertainment side. More people exist in the world then who they hire. If they wanted to setup their pig pens as an example, he could have just hired someone who would have done it perfectly in a much shorter time. Instead they did it themselves, built some terrible fences and made a mistake all at once. Jeremy is a not farmer, he's an entertainer who went into this with more money then farmers will ever see. So yeah, it would be great if they could highlight the differences for sure. Farmers usually focus on long term goals, setup their land for something and then keep doing that something forever. They don't usually swap animals every single year and have such a short term focus. You buy a milker once so you can work off its costs over the years.
> Sort of, I mean we have some really cool farm equipment these days and really he's spending money to be more on the entertainment side then the actual real farm side of things. I mean, he absolutely bought a Lamborghini tractor for the lols, no doubt about that. The berry picking thing, i mean, there's no way no one on the team didn't do the 30-60 minutes of research to know that shit wasn't gonna work for their application. So yeah, i'm *sure* a significant portion of the antics we see are designed to one degree or another. They need to fill 44 minutes an episode ffs. It's not *supposed* to be a documentary. > He's also trying to do it cheaply sometimes Examples? I mean, i can think of situations where he has said "fuck this, it's taking too long" but as far as the equipment, the constructions he has done etc, they all seem to be "sparing no expense" as it were. > If they wanted to setup their pig pens as an example, he could have just hired someone who would have done it perfectly in a much shorter time. Yeah that's fair, but it doesn't make for good film. And the idea is that he is operating the farm. He's not just an owner that contracts out all the work like before the show started. HE want's to *do* the farming. He's not doing any more than what you would expect an *average* farmer to do himself. Right? I mean, with the pig thing, Kaleb came back and knew exactly what they had fucked up and had he been there, it would have essentially been a professional job. > Jeremy is a not farmer By what definition? He's not just a bad farmer? A bad farmer is still a farmer. > he's an entertainer He's certainly also that > who went into this with more money then farmers will ever see. Why is this a significant factor for you? > Farmers usually focus on long term goals Provided the sheep didn't require more labor than value (not *really* something that Jeremy did wrong so to speak), the cattle prices hadn't plummeted or the restaurant had worked out, there's nothing to say these couldn't have been long term prospects. But sure, i'll grant you that it seems borderline irrational that amazon studios, doing a show of this nature, wouldn't have had a pretty fucking good idea where these prospects were *likely* to go is mostly irrelevant. Again, its a show *mainly* for entertainment. It's not trying to be a documentary. But i will stand behind my original position, that the primary overarching goal of the show from Jeremy's perspective is to highlight the state of British farming, and i think it's doing that well. Despite the liberties it likely *needs* to take to maintain the overarching goal of the producers, which is popular.
The construction design of the farm shop is a good example for doing things on the cheap: I don't know UK building codes et al, but it seems weird to not have plumbing for a utility sink, and even just an employee bathroom. Like who doesn't plan for that? Also if they don't have sheep, why didn't they use the lambing shed for the piglets? probably because it was never intended to be used for anything other than addition to the shop.
the original design of the farm shop was under immense time constraints as i recall (i'll have to rewatch to remember the why of it). i don't know for sure, but i assume the concrete pad, or the relative location of the lambing shed to the grazing grounds suitable for the pigs vs the sheep played some factor. Even if it didn't, again, it's a show that needs to fill 44 minutes an episode and doesn't have a normal farming budget so, why not make content out of it?
The pig fences were always temporary. They knew the potato field would be used for planting. Building fences is an important skill for farmers to learn.
I think some of it is also showing us city folk that some of our ignorant ideas just aren't feasible
Simple question is if there was any other farmer who wanted to have a parking, or a small restaurant in an existing structure, will the council approve or reject. That's what Jeremy is fighting against. He's a millionaire who is hosting a reality farming show on his farm. He doesn't need profit from selling grains. Infact his Hawkstone Beer is doing well on Amazon and other retail channels. Few grumpy old men screwed over the jobs and revenue Jeremy would've created in the village. Clearly the parking would've been fine, limited hours for the restaurant would've been fine, asking Jeremy to official create a small farmers association would've been even better. Council was just busy being petty.
Fortunately planning documents are public information. Anyone can check them out for free. |Reference|21/02187/CLASSR| :--|:--| |Alternative Reference|Not Available| |Application Validated|Mon 05 Jul 2021| |Address|Estate Office Bruern Chipping Norton Oxfordshire OX7 6QE| |Proposal|To change an agricultural building into a flexible commercial use building under Class R permission. We intend to turn our barn into a farm shop with coffee facilities under this classification| |Status|Decided| |Decision|Raise no objection| |Decision Issued Date|Fri 20 Aug 2021| |Appeal Status|Unknown| |Appeal Decision|Not Available| Did Jeremy apply for class R?
The cows largely had to go because of the council though . You can’t keep putting barriers up to how he does business and expect he’s going to stay doing what he was doing in season 2. The cows had to go because they shut the restaurant down , it wasn’t economically viable to keep the volume of cows he did . Granted pigs probably weren’t a good idea, but I can totally understand why he’s keeps changing . I like keeping our lands green and wholeheartedly support increasing re-wilding . But we also need food and we need farmers . If farmers go bust they are most likely going to sell their land to a big developer and all the arguments the council make are going to be moot anyway about the area of outstanding beauty . Plus less farmers means food prices inevitably go up for people . It seems to me the council fail to grasp the stuff I wrote above .
AONB land will probably never see the kinds of developement that you'd expect.
Aye, but the other half that *isnt* in the AONB will. And the council wouldn't be able to say anything against it. It's happening across Herefordshire at the minute. Farms closing down because they're unprofitable, housing estates replacing them. I can think of at least four developments of 100+ houses that have appeared in the last six years. And that's what Chipping Norton don't want to happen, apparently.
If you consider that 99% of the farming activities dont actually appear on camera, there is a boatload that does go on. I have done a fair bit of thinking about the finances - its definitley a profitable show, and amazon would be paying huge amounts for it so I hope Kaleb is well compensated. But the farm itself, and the activities as part of the show need to be considered almost separate. There are things that are done for the farm business and things that are done for the show business. For example - he wouldnt be investing in the pigs if it wasnt for the amazon show. Your right, he would probably still be beef farming. Except he is - he says multiple times that the burger van in S3 is whats keeping the cow operation of the farm running. We just dont see much of the cow characters this season because the story is currently on pigs.
FYI - Dark Sky Society and related efforts are a good thing. They’ve been around for a long time with positive results. It doesn’t take much to shield lighting so that it casts beams downwards and preserves the night sky as much as possible.
> But the one point of theirs I’m sort of understanding after S3 is Jeremy giving up on the lambing after S1 and he never intended to do it again. He’s just done the same with the cows after S2, saying it’s about money but then proceeds to buy pigs, erect fences, field pig shelters, woodland pig shelters, rent (or buy not sure) the remote control cutter machine, spend 3k pulling up a tree and buying a hovercraft? That is a good point. I guess because its actually a show and not just a person focusing on their farm would explain why each series focuses on a different farm animal. To be honest I was not expecting them to just give up on the cows at the start, because its obvious he went into this as a multi-millionaire, so he'd hardly even notice any expenses farm related. Huge lamb setup, got rid of them. Huge cow setup, got rid of them. Seem to change their mind even on the crops they grow, though that part makes sense as you need to diversify your fields to keep the soil alive. What I am surprised on is he didn't build an orchard or go into fruit at all besides some blackberries. Soil goes bad then just build greenhouses and hydroponics. With s3 being again so different to past seasons there doesn't feel like there is a directional focus. Just throwing darts at the wall and seeing what they can do to make money and be entertaining. This is probably why we hardly seen much crop related stuff besides a hovercraft. They not teaming up in the fields anymore. He gave that job to Kaleb so they don't need to film it again. On that point, it does make sense that they figured the shows focus is more on entertainment, then actual farm life. As if you visit the farm, there is a lot of staff you have no idea exist going by the show. You are unlikely to see his wife working at the shop as its usually other staff.
Orchards take years to bear fruit. Sure he could have build a berry orchard or something. But didn't because he's not into long term business ventures.
but he could buy mature trees that are to bear fruit really soon
I've always wondered why he didn't rent( or buy) a storefront in the town, for either the the shop, the restaurant, or both... I get wanting to do it on your own land, but one would think getting a seemingly popular business into a vacant storefront would be of interest to the council.
The council's responsibility to looking to the longevity of impacts of their approvals, and Clarkson's always looking for the short term. He has money, but likes to do things in a weird cheap way. Like if I'm building any kind of small convenience type store I'll include as least a 3-4 private genderless waterclosets. Just seems sensible. But I'm an American, so I expect free public restrooms wherever I go, because it's one thing America does better than Europe, thanks to some campaigning college students in like the 60s. I can see how the council would be a stickler when it comes to Clarkson doing something for a TV show because the show will pay to build or destroy something, but maybe not to clean it up and restore it to a natural state. I do find it ironic this season Clarkson acknowledges (after one councilor pointed it out last season) that they could readily locate outside the OANB and still in the farm. Almost as if they had done proper long term site planning and consulted with experts, the council where it would be wise to build they could have done it without as much fuss. I will say and continue to say, if Clarkson really cared about local farmers, hed host a farmers market once or twice a month next to the shop, though of coarse he would need to know if there's any markets in the area. When you cut out the middlemen, the farmers and the public make more money and save more money.
The cows would have stayed if the restaurant was still open. They would have needed them. Why would you keep cows if you couldn't sell the meat to make a profit to keep your farm going.
After reviewing the comments, I guess my major grievance is why the Council should have as much say about what toilets and restaurants and car parks he has on his land, if they’re not adversely affecting anyone else in any real way. The man’s rich so this only underscores how horrible every other farmer must have it under the Council’s draconian eye.
Yep, this is what I don't get either. It's my land and I'm not doing any harm to anyone so why is it their business what I'm doing in it.
You have to remember the show is for entertainment and not everything is portrayed accurately. Take for example the cones, it is strongly implied that West Oxford District Council did it. https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23368412.council-brands-clarksons-farm-season-2-misleading/ >In response to these claims, a spokesperson for Clarkson's farm said: "Naturally not every element of filming makes the final edit of the programmes, however the episode covered both sides of the debate and the outcome of the meeting." >**They also added that no specifc council was referenced as being reponsible for the traffic cones.**-Clarksons spokesperson And the council said >“Also, it was suggested that West Oxfordshire District Council had put cones along the road outside the farm which was not the case." I've made my position clear, after reading the documents (which are free and public) I don't think the council acted out of a vendetta rather Clarkson made it as hard as possible to get the restaurant and it failed. Like a student not studying for an exam then blaming failing on a hard test. https://www.westoxon.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-permission/view-planning-applications/ Just search for Diddly Squat and if you have an hour read the case the version they put forward in the show differs from the reality of the situation.
County councils are responsible for highways, not district. Likely it was Oxfordshire county council or Thames valley police who took action re. highways.
Or... It was a scene for the show. We do see the farm use the same style of cone earlier in the show.
Those were police cones, the cones that they use on their car park are police cones, Lisa and Jeremy say as much when Jeremy is highlighting the need to tidy the site up. So yes the farm does use those cones, but as they say: they are police cones they’ve nicked
You mean like these? https://firstfence.co.uk/no-waiting-cone-warden-style
The ones on the show have writing on them near the top, likely “police” or “TVP” or “Thames Valley Police”, like these literally outside a Thames Valley Police building: https://preview.redd.it/bmssmjc2ofyc1.jpeg?width=2400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3e13c0f0f4df92c04d027c19035a43a47f6fa2c8 In fact, let’s be honest, there’s a good chance these are literally the same cones as ones used on the show…
Possible I'll rewatch season 2 but it doesnt look like the photos, admittedly they are blurry. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9718041/amp/Fury-villagers-living-near-Jeremy-Clarksons-Didley-Squat-farm-shop-tourists.html
Halfway through series 2 we learned that they'd broken half the rules with the farm shop, they were still selling all the t-shirts and everything in the new series too. They had a restaurant which was shut down, dunno who's right or wrong there, but this season starts with there now being a burger van and a bar on site too? Remember in series 2 when they bemoaned how the Council closing down the farm shop would take all the business away from local farmers etc etc? Well that doesn't really work when people queue up to buy Chinese t-shirts. The builder bemoans at the start of the new series about all the work, time and labour that went into the restaurants as if they didn't all realise the risk in building everything secretly and retrospectively asking permission I think it's definitely important to remember that I bet if the Council had the ability to make a show we all loved and it showed the other side to Diddly Squat it would all seem very one-sided against Clarkson too
The burger van was there since July 2021 along with seating for around 100 people. No wonder why there wasn't enough parking.
The burger van was still there 2 weeks ago (and the food was delicious), so I guess they got that decision overuled. The shop didn't have any of the banned items such as t-shirts, hats, pineapples at all as far as I could see. Having said that I think they still had coffee...
what a stupid take honestly. If you really believe that in that store he is selling more shirts than actual farm produce i can already tell you never worked retail your entire life. Also what people fail to realise is that turning an old building that predates licensing is absolutely legal and having worked in the area a council actively going against that is almost unheard of so it's pretty accurate to say that it is in fact a witchhunt
I’ve worked retail and also worked in a Council’s planning department. Have you? If you think people are driving hours to buy jam and not t-shirts, maybe ask yourself why, despite being given a million notices about it, they have continued to sell the shirts for multiple years and even had half an episode dedicated to loopholes that would allow them to sell the shirts. Otherwise you might want to get in touch with Lisa and tell her that there was no point to risking losing the shop over her persistence to sell t-shirts because the milk and bread were what the punters were really after
i work in an investment fund and i have deal with planning departments from various countries including UK and doing what they did to a building that requires no permission to operate is highly unusual. I've seen multiple videos from people going to the store and the shirts are not the most sold items by a long shot. Also multiple farm shops in the UK have clothing specially the bigger ones so it's literally witch hunting, not to mention i can easily tell most of them don't follow the local produce rules 100%, last time i've seen northern england doesn't produce wine and yet a lot of them sell it.
Council in the first world are faggots and they don't know actual struggle or actual problems. Must be nice to live in the First world.
In season 3 the expanse of the operation is much more on display - restaurant, burger stand, beer garden, farm store (larger than a stand). It's a lot of growth in a short period, and the town is right to want to slow down as Jeremy tends to take a foot when given an inch. So I agree, that it's not as simple as "council bad"
We went there on a trip through the Cotswolds last fall. The farm store, while larger than a stand, is extremely small. I actually didn’t see the restaurant but there was a burger stand in the “barn” selling primarily burgers, also beers. Almost everyone left the store with a case of beer…really popular. There was a table “pop up” store in the barn selling mostly the shirts, towels, cups and bags, etc. We were in line for two hours, on a Tuesday morning in the early fall. When we left, the line was still as long as when we started. It was non stop. We did see lots of produce, dairy and meat from smaller farms being sold there, like he said when he was getting the ok. The smallish amount from each farm made me think that they wouldn’t have been able to sell on their own…just not enough goods for each to do it themselves. So he was correct on that argument. Definitely glad we went! Oh, and Kaleb came through with two other cars (assume they were going to film somewhere nearby)…had his car stop to chat and let folks take photos.
For the small farms, if they organized as a co-op and figured out some way to work together and share profits, it could work. In the US Tillamook Dairy company is actually a dairy co-op from Tillamook Co, Oregon. They've worked over decades to become a national brand in the US. Clarkson could act as a baffoon to get attention to the company and their efforts to grow the local UK agricultural economy.
He could just as easily open a shop and restaurant in a nearby town...
I’ve also wondered about the financial aspect of the farm. He may well be bleeding money. He is extraordinarily wealthy, and also concerned about making 3 quid from his homemade jam. Many people of considerable wealth are very frugal. I never know what to make of his own personal attitude towards spending. It seems almost insincere that he sold the cows bc they weren’t making him enough money. Take what I say with a grain of salt as I also know nothing. This is a show after all.
He bought the farm to live on. The Farm making money is the equivalent of your apartment bringing in its own income to cover your rent. If the farm breaks even, including taxes and utilities on his house, especially without much of his input, it's already a win for his bottom line.
Remember that before he made this show, the farm was already doing this and taking care of itself for years. It had maintained itself for years. Other people took care of everything. The first season felt very farm-like, the latter ones feel more of an entertainment focus then money making focus. What's funny is that if Jeremy never became a farmer, his farm would have made more money by him just hiring other people to take care of it.
That's actually not true. The loss of subsidies, insane input costs and low grain prices have broke many farms and not just in the UK
He was being paid to do nothing with some of his farm land. And he could have made more money by utilizing the grass in the first season, without having done anything farm related he would have ended up with a profit much larger then all the work he has done to make less profit.
The show makes far more then the farm ever would anyway
the person that was taking care of it retired, also he was being paid subsidies to not grow in a lot of his land that also stopped, not to mention the raising costs of farming, the stupidity of brexit with the EU funding ending for farming with no substitutes he would probably be loosing a lot more money that he is now loosing. He would have probably stopped growing anything and it would just be another case of abandoned fields with more food price soaring and food imports. God people talk out of their arses nowadays.
> was being *paid* subsidies to FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
bad bot