Founded in 2008. The Landscape Juice Network (LJN) is the largest and fastest growing professional landscaping and horticultural association in the United Kingdom.
LJN's professional business forum is unrivalled and open to anyone within within the UK landscape industry
LJN's Business Objectives Group (BOG) is for any Pro serious about building their business.
For the researching visitor there's a wealth of landscaping ideas, garden design ideas, lawn advice tips and advice about garden maintenance.
Replies
Why is this such an issue? I for one have no problem, in fact I think the selling off of these land holdings is a GOOD thing.
A large proportion of the estate is very remote, rarely visited, and equally a lot of it is un-thinned or well past optimum time for harvest, due to the economics and timber prices being so low, while harvesting costs are high, and as such require large areas to be cost effective.
The more viable forests will be the largest (1000acre +) in Northern Scotland (again infrequently used for recreation), and these will be the ones most likely to be retained.
A quick look at what is being sold off (Check out UPM TILLHILL and messers John Clegg & co ; note not all these forests are FC sell off, many are private), is mainly small low quality woods which are either too small to be viable for Pulp / Large scale harvesting, and small pockets of land which are less than ideal, IE steep slopes, boggy ground, poor access, poor tree species selection.
It is also worth noting, that they will all remain subject to RIGHT TO ROAM, and additionally they will hold covenants enshrining this seperatly from the act.
TBH I do not see the problem in this, and in fact I think it is a very very positive development - many less viable woods are just that "less", they do not suit industrial scale production due to their size, but are excellent for providing local / farm businesses, from firewood, to local Wood crafts, Charcoal etc.
Their scattered nature makes it unviable for any single organisation to purchase them and exploit them on a large scale.
i take your points David but why does it always have to be about the money ?whats wrong with having some woodland just left as woodland?
Perhaps I'm being a little naive with regards to this, but my understanding is that the FC has had its funding cut anyway - the sell off is raising funds directly to govt.
I think it unlikely that the smaller woods will go to forestry concerns, more likely local landowners / interested persons. There small size would pre-empt them being filled with Sitka Spruce at the expense of more ecologically useful species. As for the larger forests, My understanding from radio 4 was that they would probably be kept, as the FC makes money by selling the standing timber in large blocks, something it can not do with smaller blocks, as Harvesting operators wont touch them.
Correct me if im wrong, but cant the FC mandate planting and action on a woodland, private or otherwise, through the felling licence system, and stocking requirements? Or am I mistaken - the way I read it, the FC can require planting / care etc of woodland to maximise its wildlife value, although I'm unclear if this is secondary to timber production.