Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Treacodactyl

Replacing farm land with woods and housing

Here's an idea that may be worth some thought. The Adam Smith Institute has proposed changing the use of 3% of farmland in the UK with 90% woodland, 5% housing and 5% infrastructure. This would provide 950,000 new home, 130,000 hectares of new woodland and provide more a much more diverse habitat.

Does this sound like a good idea or just another way of shoe-horning even more houses into the countryside?

Full story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4915022.stm
Blue Peter

Re: Replacing farm land with woods and housing

Treacodactyl wrote:
Here's an idea that may be worth some thought. The Adam Smith Institute has proposed changing the use of 3% of farmland in the UK with 90% woodland, 5% housing and 5% infrastructure. This would provide 950,000 new home, 130,000 hectares of new woodland and provide more a much more diverse habitat.

Does this sound like a good idea or just another way of shoe-horning even more houses into the countryside?

Full story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4915022.stm


As per usual, I suspect the devil is in the detail. Would these lead to a further gentrification of the countryside with the houses used as holiday homes and lets, or would they be low-impact developments aimed at reviving the countryside. Given the way things work at the moment, you would fear the former,


Peter.
jamsam

but where do we grow crops???feed and graze livestock??? watch naked ramblers???
is this just another ploy to get us to build on our gardens???
Treacodactyl

jamsam wrote:
but where do we grow crops???feed and graze livestock???


There's a large amount of the countryside that's not used for producing any food and not actively looked after for wild life either.

Blue Peter wrote:
As per usual, I suspect the devil is in the detail. Would these lead to a further gentrification of the countryside with the houses used as holiday homes and lets, or would they be low-impact developments aimed at reviving the countryside. Given the way things work at the moment, you would fear the former.


The old problem of second or even third homes comes up. I really would expect there to be quite heavy taxes on second home ownership or something done to stop such a high number, especially if we need to build so many new homes.

If the proposal was done well where people can live amounst the woodland and collect much of their own wood for fuel, collect and grow much of their own food while looking after the wild life then I think it would be a fantastic idea. However, the way things are currently run all I can see is expensive executive homes, golf courses and holiday homes. Confused
jamsam

whats a gold course?
sean

Golf course, I suspect.
Blue Peter

jamsam wrote:
whats a gold course?


Probably one which tells you how to invest in gold (a commodity which is enjoying a bit of a revival),


Peter.
Blue Peter

Treacodactyl wrote:

The old problem of second or even third homes comes up. I really would expect there to be quite heavy taxes on second home ownership or something done to stop such a high number, especially if we need to build so many new homes.


Spooky! As you speak, Nu-lab to the rescue?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/...2137959,00.html
Quote:

The Times April 17, 2006

Tax rise threat to second homes
By Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor


SECOND homeowners in Britain’s favourite beauty spots face a new “absenteeism” tax under plans before the Government.

A new category of council tax is being planned for holiday homes that are left empty for six to eight months a year, with the result that many village and seaside resorts are turned into ghost towns during the winter months.




The Times has learnt that this proposed absenteeism tax is just one of a series of draconian measures that are expected to hit Britain’s 300,000 second homeowners. Other options include:


doubling or trebling council tax rates for all owners’ second homes;

creating a national register of second homes;

introducing a new business rate tax for second homes.
Treacodactyl

Blue Peter wrote:
Spooky! As you speak, Nu-lab to the rescue?


I wonder if they will do it fairly and also tax people like MPs who oftern have more than two homes?
Treacodactyl

sean wrote:
Golf course, I suspect.
Yep, I've edited my post to stop more confusion.

However, this reminds me of a rant from last week. I had to go to a meeting that was held at a new golf course. This was right next door to another golf course and had at least three old large houses that had been boarded up and I assume they were waiting for them to fall down. What a waste of houses and land, I just kept wondering how many councillors were members. Confused
Blue Peter

Treacodactyl wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:
Spooky! As you speak, Nu-lab to the rescue?


I wonder if they will do it fairly and also tax people like MPs who oftern have more than two homes?


Laughing Ha ha ha! very good, you should be on the stage. Do give up the day job, etc.

Poor MPs have to have 2 houses (at least) so that they can selflessly represent their constituents. Just as they have to have 2 jobs (at least),


Peter.
dpack

the food miles thing is a problem but "woods n houses"has good propaganda value
naked ramblers we watch in the woods or towns
Treacodactyl

Blue Peter wrote:
Poor MPs have to have 2 houses (at least) so that they can selflessly represent their constituents. Just as they have to have 2 jobs (at least).


Two's ok if you need one for work and as long as other people who work in towns and live in the country can have a second home. It's the ministers that end up with 5 or 6 that annoys me. Or the ones who claim £1,000s of expenses for a home they hardly use.
Blue Peter

Treacodactyl wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:
Poor MPs have to have 2 houses (at least) so that they can selflessly represent their constituents. Just as they have to have 2 jobs (at least).


Two's ok if you need one for work and as long as other people who work in towns and live in the country can have a second home. It's the ministers that end up with 5 or 6 that annoys me. Or the ones who claim £1,000s of expenses for a home they hardly use.


Indeedy. I think that I've just seen that MPs would be exempted, presumably only on their second home, not 3rd, 4th, etc.


Peter.
mrutty

Treacodactyl wrote:
The old problem of second or even third homes comes up. I really would expect there to be quite heavy taxes on second home ownership or something done to stop such a high number, especially if we need to build so many new homes.


Why??

It's a very modern British thing to own your own house. Else where and up until the 80's here house ownership doesn't happen to the same extent. Rent is/was the norm. We're just seeing that balance come back in this country and now there is out rage. Very odd
Blue Peter

mrutty wrote:

Why??

It's a very modern British thing to own your own house. Else where and up until the 80's here house ownership doesn't happen to the same extent. Rent is/was the norm. We're just seeing that balance come back in this country and now there is out rage. Very odd


That's a very good question. I think that I'd say that there are two reasons:

1. It means that the wealth of this country is more equitably distributed;

2. It provides a degree of permanence. It also potentially gives you a greater stake in your community.


Peter.
Treacodactyl

mrutty wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:
The old problem of second or even third homes comes up. I really would expect there to be quite heavy taxes on second home ownership or something done to stop such a high number, especially if we need to build so many new homes.


Why??

It's a very modern British thing to own your own house. Else where and up until the 80's here house ownership doesn't happen to the same extent. Rent is/was the norm. We're just seeing that balance come back in this country and now there is out rage. Very odd


Why what? I'm more than happy for people to own their own homes but justifying holiday homes when there is a need for extra housing is a bit more difficult wouldn't you agree? It's a target I would have thought the current government would have been after years ago.
mrutty

But then how do identify holiday homes and those bought to rent thus giving affordable live??
mrutty

Blue Peter wrote:
That's a very good question. I think that I'd say that there are two reasons:

1. It means that the wealth of this country is more equitably distributed;


That does rely on an ever increasing housing market. We've had a couple of flat years with house prices not rising quickly so zero gain in overal investment. Very 80's type view in many ways 'Everyone should have the right to own their own house' type thing

Blue Peter wrote:
2. It provides a degree of permanence. It also potentially gives you a greater stake in your community.


Peter.


But do we not read almost daily that our communities are falling apart. Did the old land owners not keep communities more together as everyone lived and worked together and got paid by the same landowner.

My own community is about 300 miles away as the local one here is crap and we all own our own homes.
Treacodactyl

mrutty wrote:
But then how do identify holiday homes and those bought to rent thus giving affordable live??


Well they used to give council tax rebates for them so there must be ways. A home self assessment would be an easy way, with harsh penalties for anyone lying. I'll leave the detail up to the tax office but it's just as easy as other taxes and of course there will be some people who get round it.
mrutty

Then they buy holiday home abroad and the country and the local area loses the income that tourism provides.

There is no easy answer to this
Treacodactyl

Well we have European tax laws and if there were a reasonable tax on flying. The country doesn't seem to mind money flooding out of the country on consumable items.
Blue Peter

mrutty wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:
That's a very good question. I think that I'd say that there are two reasons:

1. It means that the wealth of this country is more equitably distributed;


That does rely on an ever increasing housing market. We've had a couple of flat years with house prices not rising quickly so zero gain in overal investment. Very 80's type view in many ways 'Everyone should have the right to own their own house' type thing

I don't see that. I meant it more along the lines that if 10% of the population owned all the houses, the gap between rich and poor would be greater than if everyone owned their own home.
Quote:

Blue Peter wrote:
2. It provides a degree of permanence. It also potentially gives you a greater stake in your community.


Peter.


But do we not read almost daily that our communities are falling apart. Did the old land owners not keep communities more together as everyone lived and worked together and got paid by the same landowner.

My own community is about 300 miles away as the local one here is crap and we all own our own homes.


That's true, I suppose,


Peter.
crumbledust

mrutty wrote:
But then how do identify holiday homes and those bought to rent thus giving affordable live??


If property is bought in order to rent it out, it's being rented out for more than the mortgage on the property - it's simple profiteering.

While we're digressing on taxes... how about a tax on bedrooms. I'm fed up of all these house buying programmes where childless couples want three or four bedroom houses Smile You could get rebates if you actually had children, or were a carer.

... anyway, getting back to the main topic... I do have the very real suspicion that reference to woodlands is a simple sweetener for property development - somewhat like those committments developers make to have some low cost housing in order to get their plans through the council. However, once you've accepted the principle of allowing development in the green belt you really opened the floodgates.

Treacodactyl wrote:
There's a large amount of the countryside that's not used for producing any food and not actively looked after for wild life either.


You don't have to actively look after wild life - it's robust enough to look after itself (as long as it's not being actively fought against). I suspect that if you were to look at some of the places that they classify as worthless you'd actually disagree with them. Again, I'm just very suspicious.
mrutty

Blue Peter wrote:
I don't see that. I meant it more along the lines that if 10% of the population owned all the houses, the gap between rich and poor would be greater than if everyone owned their own home.


I see where you're going, but if you knock out that part of the market do you get a slump. Also the top 10% would find another way to stay rich and the gap would remain. Look at how few people invest in the stock market and you only need a few pounds there.

Comes down to people that think poor will stay poor and those that see themselves as working towards somethin in the main get there.
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Page 1 of 1
You must set the ad_network_ads_377.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).