Ancient Woodlands In Danger !

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25599249

Surely there must be plenty of places that we can build houses on, without destroying ancient woodlands ! Whatever happened to Greenbelts ?

[naomi24]

But as has been said, Emmie, the councils don't want the responsibility or the cost of maintaining homes. Don't misunderstand me - I think selling off council houses was the greatest mistake.

[Zacs-Master]

Nowhere in the article is 'housing' mentioned. There's really no need to put daily mail style, factually incorrect, headlines to stimulate debate. A question mark rather than an exclamation mark after your headline would have been more acceptable.

Anyway, as we are now discussion housing, I totally agree that the refurbishment of empty properties should take precedence over new builds. This would still take building trades people off the dole and smarten up what are becoming derelict ghost town areas such as there are in Liverpool.

[naomi24]

But how would you implement that, Zacs? Would you impose some sort of regulation on private owners?

[Zacs-Master]

Naomi, I may be shooting myself in the foot here but
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertypicturegalleries/9883749/Pound-land-derelict-houses-in-Liverpool-to-be-sold-for-just-one-pound.html
Why the scheme hasn't come off I haven't researched yet but it seems a good idea.

[Zacs-Master]

It would seem that it is happening slowly:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450958/Inside-1-house-First-person-buy-derelict-homes-scheme-finally-gets-keys--theres-just-35-000-work-live-it.html
The fact that it's in the DM may stimulate Mikey to join in with his own thread.

[naomi24]

They're owned by the council though, aren't they Zacs? The suggestion is that somehow private owners be obliged to tidy up their empty, run-down properties and rent them - but I don't know how that could be enforced.

[Zacs-Master]

Me neither. I think the stock is part council part privately owned. I would, possibly mistakenly, assume that there are people within the HoP who could come up with a scheme to regenerate such areas even if it means bulldozing the lot and building new.

[naomi24]

Difficult one really I mean if you bought a property purely as an investment, knowing that its value would increase substantially over the years, but didn’t want the hassle of renting it out, does anyone have the right to force you to rent it?

[Zacs-Master]

I doubt it. But I can't see a situation where the owners of every house in a large number of streets would all do it simultaneously, creating these ghost towns.
With internet shopping becoming ever more popular and the continued growth of out-of-town retail parks, I can foresee town and city centre buildings reverting to housing. Admittedly that's probably a 10 / 20 year gradual change and is no good for the current lack of stock.

[naomi24]

I agree.

[Zacs-Master]

Well that's boring! ;-)

[Zacs-Master]

But refreshing. :-))

[naomi24]

Haaa! :o)

[pastafreak]

Several years ago,George Clarke...C4's resident architect...did a series on the empty home scandal,with suggestions for funding to tackle it.
Its had positive results with 90million now available for various projects.

http://www.emptyhomes.com

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/91-million-cash-to-tackle-over-6000-empty-and-derelict-homes

[mushroom25]

make no mistake, the government have got it in for woodland in this country - perhaps they see it as unproductive and ripe for redevelopment.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/06/government-uturn-forests

and whilst they have conceded for now, they're not going to let a few inconvenient environmentalists stand in the way of a huge earner.

[Zacs-Master]

As the article is from nearly two years ago, I presume the pressure brought by public bodies was successful. The government actually did make the U turn!

[mushroom25]

it was - but I treat a politician's statement (in this case, Caroline Spelman saying that the public forests are safe with this government) in the same manner as the football manager who receives the full backing of his club's board.

[Zacs-Master]

Oh, I think Spelman was wel and truly put back in her box over that one mush:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/spelmans-forest-uturn-we-got-this-one-wrong-2218382.html

[Hypognosis]

Of course, none of you need me to tell you that, no matter how many extra trees you put in your 'compensatory plantation', a sapling is not going to attract birds to nest in it for 40+ years, the absence of leaf litter means that the worms and ground-level insects have nothing to eat or hide in, so all the larger animals which might eat them won't be showing up for a few decades either.

Indeed, the individual creatures whose habitat you're about to chop down cannot simply disperse into the bits of woodland left behind - because those territories are already taken by others of their kind - and they have no way of knowing where your replacement plantation (which isn't going to be ready inside their lifespan) is, anyway.

So, plant your forest, give it 50 years to establish itself and then we'll be more inclined to let you chop things down without a protest.