T he NFU president always has something of a tightrope to walk. He's got to be on pretty good terms with the Government in order for his voice to be heard. But to be seen to be too close is to risk the wrath of the membership, with potentially disastrous consequences.

Such, of course, was the fate of poor Tim Bennett, perceived to be attempting to ingratiate himself too enthusiastically with ministers and – after supporting the insupportable and deeply loathed Margaret Beckett – paying for it with his job, hoofed out of office ignominiously, embarrassingly and unprecedentedly after just two years in it. Peter Kendall admitted he hadn't forgotten Mr Bennett's fate when trying to talk to South West farmers about Defra's plans for cost-sharing a few days ago – and being accused by some of being too ready to find merit in the proposals.

Farmers still want to hear more fighting talk and rather less in the way of conciliatory murmurings from Mr Kendall – and certainly won't be pleased by his latest musings, this time on the subject of spraying.

After the court success scored by pesticides campaigner Georgina Downs – and in order to stave off any draconian regulations Defra might want to impose – Mr Kendall is now suggesting farmers notify nearby homeowners before each and every spraying operation.

The anger is already mounting among farmers who point out that all sprayers already follow a strict code of conduct, and while it might be practicable to notify an isolated country house, it's not so easy to provide the same service for an entire edge-of-town estate – particularly when the scheduled operation may have to be altered to take account of changing weather.

Mr Kendall's plans – which extend to surveying local attitudes and using text messages – already have some farmers suggesting he needs to take a break from Stoneleigh and start getting his hands dirty again, so out of touch is he becoming with real life.

Meanwhile, an arable farmer friend asks me what more he is supposed to do to protect from spraying fall-out the occupants of a brand-new estate built bang next to his fields. He already pays his staff overtime to spray in early morning or late evening, when the weather tends to be calmer, and always takes account of the prevailing wind.

On the other hand, nearly every occupant of the new houses has grubbed up the hedge at the end of the garden, the better to enjoy the sweeping views across his land – removing, at a stroke, a physical feature which would have provided some measure of protection against errant spray.

To make matters worse, when he felled a dangerous tree, he had a visit from a planning official investigating complaints made by some of the neighbours. My friend asked why he should be picked on for getting rid of one tree while the estate-dwellers had got away with ripping out many yards of ancient hedge.

"Basically because there's one of you and a hundred of them," he was told. A remark which, as he put it, hardly inspired any degree of confidence about the quality of his local council, its employees, or its policies.