Strong opposition is being directed at a proposal that would restrict Agricultural Property Relief (APR) on tenanted land for at least eight years.
The government's proposal aims to increase the average length of granted tenancies to eight years.
But the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV) warned the move was 'inconsistent' with the government’s response to the Rock Review, which seeks a flexible and diverse let sector.
The body said the move would result in the lack of new land attracted to letting, as well as the loss of some 200,000ha of land from the let sector in England alone.
Responding to the proposal, CAAV secretary Jeremy Moody said: “Our analysis, working from the data in our surveys, suggests that it would do considerable damage to the let sector.
“We foresee it creating a polarised outcome, with, at best, only marginal and temporary gains in the area of such eight-year lettings - with currently longer ones shortening to that - but much let land being let for shorter terms and further land ceasing to be re-let.”
He added that the arguments put for the proposal overlooked the variety of current and potential private sector landowners.
“The stereotypical let farm with a house and buildings accounts for less than 10% of lettings," Mr Moody said, adding that most lettings were "of bare land by owners who prize flexibility."
In its analysis, CAAV also said that the move would lead to a long-term reduction in the size of the let sector from around a third of England’s farmed land to around a fifth.
There would also be falls in the use of Short Limited Duration Tenancies in Scotland, with little gain in the longer Modern Limited Duration Tenancies and other land lost from letting.
Mr Moody concluded: “This does nothing for existing tenancies, reduces opportunities for would-be tenants, while many landowners could see fiscal advantage in taking environmental options themselves rather than letting land out.
“While changing tax rules can be expected to change behaviour, this outcome is the opposite of what its advocates want, but we cannot see how it can do what they want.”
