1929 – Council discussion on SMALL-HOLDINGS ESTATE. A scheme was submitied by the Small Holdings Sub-Committee for the equipment of the Fir Tree Farm, Stowupland, with a new house and buildings, the total cost, including the loan charge, being £1,112 . Mr. W. Woodgate pointed out that the proposal involved the expenditure of £26 or £27 per acre, and, in view of the present state of agricultural depression, said he wondered whether it would not be better to give the land away to someone who would cultivate it rather than spend all this money on it: Ald. Mason said that the scheme was for the creation of two holdings, and it was the duty of the Committee to provide such holdings. With the assistance from the Ministry the cost to the Council would be £lO a year, It | would cost them more than £lO a vear | to cultivate it themselves, and the alternative to that was to allow the land to go derelict, | Ald. Humphery moved that in such circnmstances, the best thing (he Council could do was to sell the land. Mr. W. F. Cockrell said that he had had some experience of heavy land. If this money were spent they could not expect two small-holders to make anything out of the land, which would then be thrown back on the Council’s hands. Ald. H. C. Adams said the whole question of the policy of small holdings was involved in this discussion, Here was a system which the Agricultural Committee were trying, in face of grave difficulties, to promote, 1t was not a question of whether to spend £3OO on brick and tile buildings, That matter could be settled in committee, It was a question rather of going back on the social legislation known as the Small Holdings and Allotments Act. They were all deploring the conditions of agriculture, but if they were going to turn craven hearted about a national policy and “declare that they would not go on with it because this or that piece of land was not paying at the moment what encouragement would there be to go on with the policy ? The new house proposed to be built would be a house fit 1o live in. The buildings would be fit for the job, unlike a good many buildings which at present were valueless, as being unsuitable and in bad repair. He was not suggesting that a thousand pounds should be spent. It would be best for the matter to go back to the committee for re-consideration of how to make the place less costly, either the Council must support the committee in their endeavour to grow food and keep the people “on the land” or they must abandon that policy. They must make up their, minds whether it was possible for East Suffolk to subsist on letting lodgings and running a few factories. While this County Council was a unit of the national Government, and the Government’s policy was to help agriculture, ought they not to go on with this small-holdings policy even where it was uneconomic ? (**No, No.”)
{Yarmouth Independent 5 Jan 1929}