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 ?

[emmie]

he said perhaps, not will, these sorts of decisions are not made on the spot, they take an age, i would think it won't get the go ahead.

[emmie]

from your link

The Department for the Environment stressed it was "extremely unlikely" planning permission would be granted on land covered by ancient woodland.

[mikey4444]

Thanks emmie...you are right...I posted this to stimulate debate on the subject of encroachment of the Greenbelt, something that concerns me greatly.

For instance, I wonder how many ancient woodlands that HS2 will be going through, assuming it goes ahead in the first place ?

[boxtops]

I fail to understand this mania for building new homes, when we already have so many lying empty and underoccupied. What is it?

[mikey4444]

Its called capitalism boxy.

But what we actually need in Britain is not more "executive" housing, for people who are already wealthy. We need more affordable housing, and that might mean more council houses. I know saying that is tantamount to breaking wind in Chapel but its true nonetheless.

If we were to have a big council house building program, it would take building industry workers off the dole, and provide proper homes for all those poor people that are living in B+B's throughout Britain. We would then be able to save money, rather than paying private landlords millions of pounds to house families in overcrowded and vastly overpriced homes.

It would also help to replace the rentable housing stock that we lost and wasted under the miss-guided campaign of the 1980's when people were allowed to buy their Council Houses but local Councils were forbidden to use the money raised to build replacements.

[naomi24]

I don’t think we should destroy ancient woodlands, but the problem is if we build houses we need to build them in places where the infrastructure exists to support the people who will live in them. Roads, schools, transport, medical facilities, etc. Houses alone are not enough. There’s a much bigger picture to consider.

//I fail to understand this mania for building new homes, when we already have so many lying empty and underoccupied. What is it? //

With an ever-increasing population, I would have thought it obvious.

[emmie]

i object to greenbelt land being used at all, and for that matter private developers being able to pay a retainer to the council and get their private dwellings built, taking up space, not affordable by the majority of us, and indeed being left empty, as three local private homes are, they cost to buy, or so i was informed 2 1/2 million each, they look like little lego boxes, ghastly design, bring nothing to the locale and only an overseas buyer is likely to be interested, as an investment. And we do have lots of nice properties that have been left to rot, councils short-sightedness on this. Social housing has not just been recently hived off, it's been happening a long while. The Labour run council is still doing it.

[naomi24]

//And we do have lots of nice properties that have been left to rot, councils short-sightedness on this.//

Do they belong to the Council?

[emmie]

thats the problem, friends who live out of town in what i call the sticks, have seen development after massive development of once farmland used for housing. The roads are always clogged, there are no jobs anywhere near by, nor sufficient schools, and the only hospital is too small to accommodate more people.

[emmie]

they do,

[naomi24]

Then the council needs to get its act together. (Who's that in your avatar? Rather dapper!).

[emmie]

it took the council 25 years to do essential external repairs to our properties, ones that we are not able by law to do ourselves, they do not and have not maintained their social housing portfolios, and many of these larger properties, houses, are indeed left to rot, then sold for a song to a developer as unfit for purpose. They continually say it's all about money, however it's all about the council not wishing to have or maintain social housing, if they did basic repairs, then let them to people who pay a fair rent, instead they hive them off to private companies.
or let these private developers build whole raft of homes, most of which are not affordable. If you have several million stashed away for a house in the capital, would you honestly do it,
i wouldn't, but buy something away from here. Foreign investment corporations are building large blocks of apartments for rents, most of which will be out of the pocket of the man who runs the corner shop, or delivers the post, they will suit overseas bankers, perhaps students of rich parents. but not the likes of you or i.

[emmie]

the fabulous Jean DuJardin from the film The Artist.

[emmie]

this is what i was referring to

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2394704/Foreign-investors-snap-70-new-build-homes-central-London.html

[boxtops]

I accept that we have more people needing homes - but I only have to walk round our town here to see dozens of empty flats,many above shops and in listed buildings (many in some disrepair), that could be brought back into the housing market, without building new ones. Flat to Let signs proliferate.

[anotheoldgit]

No Ancient woodlands would be used to build houses on.

/// it would be only for major infrastructure projects, it added. ///

/// He cited the construction of the M6 toll road around Birmingham, saying 10,000 mature trees had been lost but a million young trees planted. ///

[emmie]

boxy, exactly what i have said for ages, many are being left empty, if they are private landlords who do it, they should be given six months to one year to get them fit to rent if they aren't already, and after that told by the council, or whichever governing body they will be compulsory purchased.
it might wake them up to do the work and rent them out.

[boxtops]

Good plan, emmie.

[naomi24]

But who owns them, Boxy? If 'Flat to Let' signs proliferate, they are clearly not in the hands of the council, so there's little the council can do about it.

[emmie]

i could link to one of our local papers, in the ads section with properties for sale, owned by the local authority.