A note to start
A 20-year commitment is not one person’s decision alone. Even where legal authority rests with one name on the deeds, a scheme of this duration touches the people who live on the holding, work on it, inherit it, grew up on it, married into it, or simply love it from one edge to another.
This guide is written in the belief that the best decisions are reached in conversation — and that the kitchen table is often where those conversations begin.
There is no pressure to discuss all of this. There is no right order. Take what helps; leave what doesn’t.
Who to talk to, and when
Your partner or spouse
If the decision is held jointly in practice — even where it’s held singly in law — this conversation comes first. What changes for the two of you over the next 20 years if the holding is in the scheme? What changes if it isn’t?
Children (adult)
Adult children of a farming family often carry different positions on the future of the holding than the current owner. Some have no interest in returning. Some hope to return but haven’t said so. Some have views shaped by a decade of living away that you may not yet know.
The scheme is a 20-year commitment — longer than many careers, the span of a generation. Adult children have a real stake in whether the holding they may inherit is in the scheme or not.
Children (young or at home)
Younger children may have strong views about the land they are growing up on — feelings about particular fields, becks, trees, buildings. These views are real and need not be dismissed as sentimental. Restoration works will change what some of these places look like; that change is worth acknowledging before it happens.
The older generation
Parents, aunts, uncles who may have farmed the land themselves. Their reference points will be different — set-aside, the old stewardship schemes, the long arc of what the holding has been. Their concerns may sound like resistance; often they’re carrying real institutional memory about what has and hasn’t worked.
The people who work the holding
If you employ farm staff, work with contractors, or have family who help out — they will be affected by scheme activity. Their knowledge of the ground is often the most detailed anyone has. Including them early reduces surprises later.
Tenants (if tenanted)
Where part of the holding is let, the tenant has both a legal and a practical stake. The scheme’s design explicitly requires tenant consent for material changes in use. Better to start this conversation now.
Questions worth working through together
These are not a checklist. They are prompts for conversations that may take several sittings.
On the land itself
- What do we love about the holding as it is?
- What would we want to stay the same over 20 years?
- What are we already losing that we wish we weren’t — soil, water, wildlife, buildings, ways of working?
- If 20 years of restoration work goes well, what might the holding look like? How does that land with each of us?
On the family’s relationship with the holding
- Who sees themselves here in 20 years?
- Who wants the holding to carry on in the family? Who isn’t sure? Who actively doesn’t?
- If we didn’t know how long we’d have the holding, what choice would we make?
On the scheme itself
- What’s our honest reaction to the governance structure? To the trustmark? To the surplus model? (Use the specific briefs; don’t assume shared understanding.)
- What would go wrong for our holding if the scheme went wrong? What would go wrong if it went well but we weren’t in it?
- Where are our advisors on this — land agent, solicitor, accountant? Have we asked them?
On the timing
- Do we feel ready to decide on 30 April? If not, are we ready to say so openly?
- What would help us be ready — more time, more information, more conversation, a specific question answered?
On disagreement
- If one of us is yes and one of us is no, how do we hold that?
- What does “not yet” mean in our family — a real answer, or a way of avoiding a harder one?
What “yes” and “no” can both mean
Saying yes means: I am prepared, in good faith, to hold this commitment for 20 years. I can live with the governance option, surplus model, and trustmark tier we are choosing. I understand the exit provisions. I have spoken with my family and my advisors.
Saying no means: this scheme is not right for this holding, for this family, at this time. That is a legitimate answer — respected by the Consortium, held without judgment. Other routes to DEFRA funding exist. Other ways to care for the land exist.
Saying not yet means: I need more time, more conversation, or a specific question answered before I can give a clear yes or no. The 14-day ratification period is specifically designed to allow for this. Further extension is available if that is not long enough.
Silence is not consent. The absence of a clear yes is treated as “not yet”, not as agreement by default.
On the generational question
Among the harder private questions is this: am I making this choice for myself, or for the people who come after me?
Both are real. A 20-year scheme is long enough to span a generation — young children may be young adults by the end of Year 20. The restoration begun now is not for the person who signs; it is for the land and for those who carry it forward.
That is a weight, and it is also a gift. The scheme is designed to protect the signing landowner’s choice: exits are available, conditions can be attached, the scheme cannot force actions beyond delivery. But it is worth being honest with the family about what, in the end, is being taken on.
If the conversation gets stuck
Some families find these conversations come easily; others find them impossible. Both are common.
If conversation gets stuck, a few possibilities:
- Take a break and return. 20 years is long; a week is not.
- Read the FAQ together (“The Questions No One Wants to Ask Out Loud”) — sometimes it helps to ask someone else’s question first.
- Invite a trusted third party in. An adult child who’s been away, a sibling, a trusted friend who knows the family and the holding. Sometimes an outside ear helps.
- Ask Phil for a small-group conversation. The Consortium facilitator is available to meet family groups privately, not just the named member. There is no expectation that the full family attends the 30 April workshop — but if a private family conversation would help, it can be arranged.
- Go outside. Many decisions of this kind are best taken on the ground, not at the table.
On not signing
If, after all the conversation, the clear answer is no — that is a real answer. It should not be softened into “not yet” out of social pressure.
Not signing does not sever your relationship with YWT, with the dales, or with the other 17 landowners. The scheme is designed to proceed with the ratifying members and leaves the door open for later joining on equivalent terms, should that become appropriate.
Holding out — for the right reasons, clearly articulated — is a legitimate act. The scheme depends on the 18 of you making decisions that hold for 20 years. A no now is worth more than a withdrawn yes in three years.
Contact
If you would find a conversation helpful before the 30 April workshop — on your own, with your family, or with one of your advisors — please get in touch.
No question is logged as a concern. No family conversation needs to be shared with the Consortium. What happens at the kitchen table stays at the kitchen table — and the decision made there belongs to the family that made it.