Land Classification

Summary

The requester sought documentation proving the 2008-2009 land classification process for the Country Care Scheme was followed correctly, specifically regarding fields 224567 and 135050. The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture disclosed that the Scottish Agricultural College conducted the survey using aerial and habitat maps, confirmed no appeals were lodged for the specific fields, and provided links to the policy and claim forms.

Key Facts

• Land classification for the Country Care Scheme was conducted in 2008 by the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) using aerial and habitat maps.
• Ambiguous areas were ground-truthed by SAC and DEFA officers, with vegetation composition used to assess historical land use.
• Twelve farm businesses appealed initial classifications, but the specific claimants for fields 224567 and 135050 did not lodge an appeal.
• Both applicants for fields 224567 and 135050 claimed the land was of AML character and Rough Grazing on their 2009 claim forms.
• The Department confirmed the classification process was satisfied through ground-based survey and the absence of appeals.

Data Disclosed

• 2008
• 2009
• 2017-08-18
• 2019-03-19
• 2017-09-15
• 2009-02-20
• Field 224567
• Field 135050
• 50 acres
• 12 farm businesses
• 30 day window
• Ref: IM99675i

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Page 1 of 4

 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture

  Rheynn Chymmyltaght, Bee as Eirinys

15th September 2017

Dear

Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (FoIA) Ref: IM99675i Land Classification Thank you for your request dated 18th August 2017
You asked (for ease of reference your questions have been numbered): 1. “Please provide all documentation including electronic documentation, under your possession, custody or control concerning the process of how land was classified as “Above Mountain Line - AML” or “Below Mountain Line – BML” under the Country Care Scheme sometime in 2008 and 2009 and where the AML and BML classifications have been carried through to the ADS.

Please refer to the attached “Definitions of Land Classes on the Isle of Man” as officially promulgated by DEFA.

The specific documentation I seek concerns evidence that the process as stated in the attached DEFA protocol was in fact carried out.

1. I also request documentation concerning any recent attempt by DEFA to review whether the classification process was in fact carried out correctly in 2008 / 2009 as stated in the attached protocol following my recent complaint to DEFA in regard to my concerns that there were apparent irregularities in the process.

The land classification process is clearly defined in the attached DEFA document. I do not believe it is necessary for me to reproduce that document in my FOI request. However if you require clarification of this request as to the documentation I require, kindly contact me at your earliest convenience.

The only documentation I have received to date are two mud maps supposedly produced by persons unknown during the classification process sometime in 2008 / 2009.

Freedom of Information
Co-ordinator Corporate Services Directorate, Thie Slieau Whallian, Foxdale Road,
St John’s, Isle of Man, IM4 3AS Tel no (01624) 685854 Fax no (01624 685851 Email: defa@gov.im
www.gov.im

Quoting Ref: IM99675i Your Ref:

Page 2 of 4

1. Please state unambiguously if there is any documentation or no documentation to confirm:

2. All of the two AML and three BML definitions were actually considered and applied or rejected.

3. The area of Field 224567 being less than 50 acres was actually considered and rejected.
4. The position of Field 224567 as physically below the mountain wall was actually considered and rejected.
5. The fertiliser or liming history and grass species in Field 224567 and Field 135050 was considered and rejected.
6. Evidence of agricultural improvement was considered and rejected.
7. DEFA requested SAC to apply the five AML / BML definitions as attached to fields 224567 and 135050.

Response

1. Question “…evidence that the process as stated in the attached DEFA protocol was in fact carried out.”

Answer Our aim is to provide information wherever possible and in this instance a search has been carried out and we confirm that information is held. It is: • The policy is available via this hyperlink https://www.gov.im/media/276973/ccs land classification policy.pdf. • The description of the process in the Farmers’ Handbook submitted with your request. • The sample letter (Appendix 1) with accompanying field lists, sent to all land occupants following the classification process which offered the chance to appeal if they considered the classifications to be incorrect. Twelve farm businesses appealed against the initial classifications applied to some of their land. • The 2009 Countryside Care Scheme claim forms where the land occupants agreed with the classifications. (Appendix 2)

By way of further explanation however, land was classified in 2008 by the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) using aerial maps and habitat maps. Areas that, from the mapping, appeared ambiguous were “ground-truthed” (checked) by SAC and DEFA (then DAFF) officers and representative areas were also sampled to ensure the correct classification.

The previous history of the land was assessed based on the vegetation composition, which provided clues to the seeding, fertiliser and liming history. In many instances fields that were historically improved had reverted back to an unimproved or semi-improved state and were classified based on the vegetation composition at the time of survey.

The Druidale area was surveyed and assessed as having species of AML character. In cases where the assessment outcome was ambiguous, BML classification was assigned. You have been given the field maps relating to the classifications of your land.

Following conclusion of the classification exercise applicants to the scheme were notified of the classification of their land by letter on the 20th February 2009 (see Appendix 1) and advised that there was a 30 day window to lodge an appeal against the classification. At this time field numbers 224567 and 135050 were claimed by two separate claimants. Neither of these claimants lodged an appeal on the land classification. Additionally, on the 2009 claim forms submitted by the two applicants for these fields, both applicants claimed Page 3 of 4

the fields were of AML character and the land type was classified as Rough Grazing. Both also indicated that there were areas of ineligible gorse (redacted copies attached at Appendix 2).

The Department was satisfied that it had classified the land accordingly through: 1. Ground based survey; 2. No appeals were received from applicants in March 2009; and 3. Written confirmation of the field details was received from applicants as part of their claims in May 2009.

1. Question “… documentation concerning any recent attempt by DEFA to review whether the classification process was in fact carried out correctly in 2008 / 2009 …”

Answer The land classification process is publicly available and is detailed here https://www.gov.im/media/276973/ccs land classification policy.pdf. No further information is held.

No review of the land classification process took place as the original definitions remain unaltered. The only land that to be reassessed were areas that were appealed within the time frame, re-mapped due to mapping changes or were new parcels of land that were previously ‘white space’ (i.e. unmapped) on the map.

1. Question (answers are adjacent to each question)

“Please state unambiguously if there is any documentation or no documentation to confirm:

1. All of the two AML and three BML definitions were actually considered and applied or rejected.

No information or documentation is held other than in the Farmers’ Handbook, as you submitted with this request and available via the hyperlink above.

1. The area of Field 224567 being less than 50 acres was actually considered and rejected.

Information is held (see Appendix 1).This was considered during the classification process and it was classified accordingly. A letter was sent to the occupant at the time who had the opportunity to object but did not. The occupant at the time also agreed with the classification when submitting their 2009 Countryside Care Scheme application (see Appendix 2).

1. The position of Field 224567 as physically below the mountain wall was actually considered and rejected.

Please see the answer to 2 above.

1. The fertiliser or liming history and grass species in Field 224567 and Field 135050 was considered and rejected.

No information or documentation is held. Please see the answer to 2 above.