UK is now a much more a green land UK is now a much more a green land - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11

    Prof Cunning @ Oxford Uni

    WTFH has reached the peak. Play again?

    WTFH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    18,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woohoo View Post
    Presumably, the majority of people wanting to own 2, 3, 4 + houses would want to rent them out, so available stock. Divorce is at it's lowest in 40 years.

    As you said many reason for the demand, still the demand is ruining many green areas.
    There's a lot of people with holiday homes - they might not be renting them out (or not renting them out full time)

    You also have the investors who are buying property and leaving it empty - there's over 20,000 empty houses in London, and about 10x that in the rest of the country

    Empty homes in the UK: the true picture

    Action on Empty Homes
    Moderation means Moderation
    Strong and Stable Moderation

    Get Moderation Done - Unleash Moderator Potential

  2. #12

    Nervous Newbie

    downefif has no reputation


    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    2

    Default

    What do the locals say? If they agree that there are now more green spaces, then this is very nice!

  3. #13

    Contractor Among Contractors

    JohntheBike is NOT a disguised employee


    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrilloPad View Post
    100 years of state forestry in the UK

    In September 1919, the Forestry Commission was established.

    Fast forward 100 years and woodland cover has more than doubled, with over 10% of England and 6% of Wales now covered by trees.

    I think there are many other issues at play other than the Forestry Commission. The house that I live in was built by my father-in-law in 1934. I've lived in it since 1970. There are photographs taken when the house was built of the area behind the house and there are no trees visible. Fast forward to 1974 and the view is much the same, with just a hint of a few bushes. Fast forward to 2014 and trees have grown to heights of 50+ ft and bushes have multiplied everywhere. So why in the millennia up to 1974 did no trees grow, whilst since 1974 there has been an explosion of growth? Could this be another sign of global warming?

  4. #14

    More time posting than coding

    wattaj 's job has never been outsourced

    wattaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohntheBike View Post
    I think there are many other issues at play other than the Forestry Commission. The house that I live in was built by my father-in-law in 1934. I've lived in it since 1970. There are photographs taken when the house was built of the area behind the house and there are no trees visible. Fast forward to 1974 and the view is much the same, with just a hint of a few bushes. Fast forward to 2014 and trees have grown to heights of 50+ ft and bushes have multiplied everywhere. So why in the millennia up to 1974 did no trees grow, whilst since 1974 there has been an explosion of growth? Could this be another sign of global warming?
    No. Much more likely is a change in the funding available to landowners for planting. The FC manages these schemes on behalf of Government.

    HTH.

    Yours ex-FC(Scotland) contractor.
    ---

    Former member of IPSE.

  5. #15

    Contractor Among Contractors

    JohntheBike is NOT a disguised employee


    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wattaj View Post
    No. Much more likely is a change in the funding available to landowners for planting. The FC manages these schemes on behalf of Government.

    HTH.

    Yours ex-FC(Scotland) contractor.
    the area in question at the rear of my home is rough ground and wouldn't have attracted any planting incentives. It's mostly gorse and deciduous trees. It drops steeply to the canal and river and I would say that the growth of trees is entirely natural. But the fact is that until about 1974, there was little or no growth, which seems to have exploded since then.

  6. #16

    More time posting than coding

    wattaj 's job has never been outsourced

    wattaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohntheBike View Post
    the area in question at the rear of my home is rough ground and wouldn't have attracted any planting incentives. It's mostly gorse and deciduous trees. It drops steeply to the canal and river and I would say that the growth of trees is entirely natural. But the fact is that until about 1974, there was little or no growth, which seems to have exploded since then.
    It is possible to check if one is so inclined: ArcGIS Web Application

    Or, perhaps it just became too expensive to maintain and was left untended by the owner.
    ---

    Former member of IPSE.

  7. #17

    Contractor Among Contractors

    JohntheBike is NOT a disguised employee


    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wattaj View Post
    It is possible to check if one is so inclined: ArcGIS Web Application

    Or, perhaps it just became too expensive to maintain and was left untended by the owner.
    I knew the previous owner who leased one small part of the land for animals, and the current owner, who until fairly recently didn't maintain any of the land. He now just maintains a very small parcel of the land, which is on the flat and the remainder is left unattended. The trees have grow noticeably on the flat portion and the steeply sloped portion doesn't seem to have overgrown significantly. I guess this is because it's predominantly covered in gorse, which seems to strangle everything else.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •