UFU will always stand up for farm families affected by vesting

Northern Ireland Assembly and Government building in Stormont Estate in Belfast

Commodity Watch, written by UFU policy officer Daniel Toft

Recent coverage in the Irish News around land values for farmers affected by the A5 Western Transport Corridor should not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the UFU position on vesting and compulsory acquisition over many years.

The UFU has consistently engaged with successive Infrastructure Ministers, the Department for Infrastructure and relevant project teams on the treatment of farm families and landowners affected by major public infrastructure schemes. This has included road schemes, utility infrastructure, and other projects where privately owned agricultural land may be taken for the wider public good.

Our position has always been clear; that when Government uses compulsory powers to take land from a farm business, the people directly affected must be treated fairly, transparently and with proper regard for the real impact on their farm business.

Vesting is one of the most serious powers available to government. It is not a normal sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and in many cases, the farmer would not voluntarily choose to sell the land. The land is being taken because a public authority has decided that a wider scheme should proceed, and this places a heavy responsibility on the system to ensure that individual landowners are not left carrying an unfair share of the cost.

The basic principle in law is straightforward: an affected landowner should be left no better and no worse off. Whilst this principle is open to challenge, it is the reality of the system we operate in currently. That principle is often referred to in discussions around compulsory acquisition, but it must mean something in practice. It is not enough for a process to claim fairness on paper if the farm is left unable to replace the land taken, unable to reorganise the business properly, or permanently disadvantaged by the consequences of the scheme.

This is especially important in agriculture because the land is the productive base of the farm business, not just a financial asset. Losing land can create severage, fragmentation, and practical disruption that goes beyond the acreage acquired. A small area of land taken in the wrong place can have a major effect on how a farm operates.

This is why the UFU has raised concerns around how land values are assessed and how historic valuations are used in the vesting process. In the case of the A5, if land is valued at one point in time, but the scheme proceeds much later when market conditions have changed substantially, there is a real risk that the compensation paid no longer reflects the cost of replacing land in the local market. That undermines the very principle the system is supposed to uphold. A farmer who receives compensation based on outdated values may find that they cannot buy replacement land nearby. In some cases, suitable land may not be available at all. Where it is available, the price may have moved significantly. If the compensation does not reflect that reality, the farmer is not being left no better and no worse off. They are being left worse off.

It is difficult to justify a system where contractor costs, material costs, labour costs, professional fees and wider scheme delivery costs are allowed to reflect current market conditions, while the price paid to landowners for land taken by vesting is effectively frozen at an historic level. Every other part of major infrastructure delivery is expected to move with the market, and the land taken from farmers should not be treated as if time has stood still.

This point is not limited to one scheme; the current debate may have focused attention on the A5, but the issue is much wider. Across Northern Ireland, public infrastructure schemes can involve land being taken from farm businesses, which includes roads, greenways, electricity infrastructure, water infrastructure, pipelines and other public works.

Farm families understand the need for investment in infrastructure, as rural communities need safe roads, reliable electricity networks, improved water infrastructure, modern communications, and projects that support the wider economy. Many of these schemes are brought forward because they are expected to deliver economic and societal benefits. However, those wider benefits should not be delivered by leaving individual farm families or landowners to carry an unfair share of the cost.

The UFU has also repeatedly highlighted the importance of proper engagement. Too often, landowners feel that decisions are made around them rather than with them. They can face years of uncertainty while trying to make business decisions on land that may or may not be taken, effectively sterilising the value of the land for an extended period of time. That uncertainty affects investment, succession planning, land management, and day-to-day operations on farms. There must be earlier and more meaningful engagement with affected landowners. Accommodation works must be properly discussed, agreed, and delivered. Communication must be clear and consistent too. Where land is taken, the full impact on the remaining farm business must be recognised, including severance, loss of efficiency, access issues, and further disruption.

The UFU believes Northern Ireland’s compulsory purchase and vesting system requires urgent reform. The reform must look at how land values are assessed, how current local market evidence is used, how business disruption is compensated, and how the practical realities of modern farm businesses are accounted for. It must also consider how landowners are supported throughout the process, as a fair system should not require individual farm families to fight lengthy battles at the expense of their finances, mental health, and time, simply to secure proper treatment.

Fair treatment for landowners is not an obstacle for infrastructure, but part of delivering infrastructure properly. If a public scheme is being advanced because it will benefit wider society, then the cost of delivering that scheme should be recognised honestly and fairly within the project; it should not be pushed onto the farm families whose land happens to be in its past.

The UFU will always stand up for landowners affected by vesting. We will continue to press Ministers, departments, and agencies for a fairer, more transparent and more modern system which properly reflects current land values, recognises the impact on farm businesses and families, and ensures that no farmer is left worse off because their land has been taken for the public good.