About the Landscape Juice Network

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

  • I think this is one of the stupidest policies ever, and it wasn't in either of the coalition parties manifestos.

     

    Once they're sold, that's it, no going back.

     

    On paper there may be an argument that private companies would look after their interests but the past 30 years of privitisations shows that in the real world that just does not happen. There would also be no incentive to maintain paths, car parks, visitor centres etc.

    The forestry commision would end up going which is stupid as they don't just maintain forests they own they provide advice to privately owned forests. If all forests were private this advice and support structure would vanish.

    It makes no financial sense anyway, check out this article by the private eye (yes a serious article) - http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=hp_sauce&amp...

     

    So loads of restrictions would have to be restricted then priviate companies could just log ancient woodland and just replant with conifers.

     

    Blah, rant over, I'm mostly a lurker here, don't know where that came from!

  • i have signed up mate ,it will raise hardly anything total waste of time and money ,the national forests belong to us not those tits.

    on the daily politics today it turns out that mps have a £850,000 wine cellar ,the colalition has toped it up with another £25,000 pounds worth.

    thease people have no clue how the rest of us live ,anyone who watched andrew neals program last night will know this.

    160,000 families own 37 million acres of the UK whilst 16 million homeowners manage on just 2.8 million acres.

    somethings bloody wrong here


  • I agree with everything you say Thomas (and I wouldn't regard you as a lurker :-)

    Thanks for the link to the PI article.  I note that the Royal Forest of Dean features heavily.  We have a flat there and my son also lives there.  It's not just a patch of trees in the middle of nowhere.  It's a vast forested area containing a number of towns and villages.  The foresters have rights to graze their sheep that go back centuries and also mining rights.

    Here's just one link (of many) that will give an idea of he scale of it.

     http://www.visitforestofdean.co.uk/

    The Kielder forest is another example of a precious resource.  The idiots who run this country need to get down to grass roots and understand what goes on outside their ivory towers.

  • Newsnight piece on it from 26.04 onwards - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y14s7/Newsnight_26_01_2011/

  • Unfortunately, iPlayer isn't available over here.
  • I have signed up for this, and also added it on my Facebook encouraging my friends to sign up too - I think it is a disgrace.
  • This has already been discussed I belive :-

    http://www.landscapejuicenetwork.com/forum/topics/save-the-forests

     

    I also Stand my previous post on this, and fully support the sell off. Only last weekend I was in an FC Sitka Spruce Plantation near the Yorkshire Dales collecting seeds (for personal use).

    The forest is over 15 years over due for thinning which would benefit both wildlife and the economics of the forest, yet speaking to a local farm hand, various excuses have been given for it not being carried out including that seeing harvesters attracts (negative) public attention, panic, curious bystanders in the way etc, right through to "no reason". Private forests nearby are well managed, have diverse lower story flora and fauna, and from what I can tell are partly managed under a CCF (continuous cover forestry) system. To clear up why - forestry produces "lumpy" income streams, so it is often very necessary to encourage wildlife through bio-diverse management to get additional Grant aid, and also for Shooting - which can bring in very good money if the deer shooting is good. This helps make the forest bring in income, and therefore keep people a) in jobs (gotta love rural jobs now) b) the forest as a sustainable economic and social asset.

     

    Also alot of the objections are purely speculation, given that 80% of woodland is private already, much of it ex farmland, the language used about "englands forests being sold off" is very mis-leading. Also If what radio 4 was saying on monday was correct, over half the land is not owned freehold, but held on 100, 250 and 999 year leases from farmers and country estates.

    A big concern is that many leases when they expire, revert the ownership of the timber to the freeholder, and this would mean that unless in the next 7-10 years huge areas of our forests are Clear cut, they would be giving private individuals a huge windfall. Selling the lease back to the individual or someone else would save the tax payer money, and potentially make a profit. One of the reasons why the sale would raise so little value is also linked to this - Would you buy 200 acres of 40y old spruce with only 7 years to cut down and market it? With no likely chance the freeholder will grant another lease?

     

     

    TO clear any confusion and to avoid flaming (as I've got elsewhere certainly not LJN though), I do have a vested interest in a private woodland, and do have family interests in Land which may become woodland in the near future.

  • Hi David,

    Yes, you're right.  It has been discussed elsewhere but the discussion didn't include a link to the campaign.

    You're entitled to your opinion and admit that you have a vested interest.

    We don't do "flaming" on here so don't worry about that.

    We live in a democracy for which there'd be no need if we all had the same opinions.


  • They can have mine if the price is right :-)


    john grass roots home and garden said:

    the next few years the con dems will be selling off everthing memories of the last conservative regime ...lock up your first born children they might want to sell them off next  
  • Yes,


    My reply caught me after i got home following a discussion on this very subject.

    I suppose I can sum up my thoughts in less "assertive" tones;

     

    I feel that the entire campaign launched so far is based on miss-information and a total miss-representation of a) the type of woodland in this country, b) panic mongering with regards to development of the land (no one will build a housing estate on a windy moor.... planning permission impossible, who would want to live there?) c) ownership of woodland in this country, and how small the public forest estate actually is, and d) The actual value of the woodland and how "little" will be gained from it, without mentioning much will 'revert' to former owners in the coming years.

     

    The issue should not be about ownership, but rather about access (which it may be heading towards).

     

    Also people seem to assuming big corporations would buy the woodland, which is unlikely as it is a poor asset, and businesses do not benefit from the Inheritance tax exemption that woodland carries.

    Access

    I do not think this would be an issue if a covenant requiring the "Status quo regarding public use, including bicycle and equine usage" was attached. Or Mark all permissive paths are "Public rights of way" ensuring a common law right to use the land for recreation.

     

    Infact I would support an extension of the Right to Roam to all Private woodlands which would roughly double the open land the public can enjoy in England.

     

     

    Oh and as for the Agri wages board abolition - that is a travesty... Wish people would fight for the rural poor as they're sold down the river, rather than a romantic attachment to forests which on the whole are nothing more than tree farms, not wilderness.

     

    Bigyin said:

    Hi David,

    Yes, you're right.  It has been discussed elsewhere but the discussion didn't include a link to the campaign.

    You're entitled to your opinion and admit that you have a vested interest.

    We don't do "flaming" on here so don't worry about that.

    We live in a democracy for which there'd be no need if we all had the same opinions.

This reply was deleted.

LJN Sponsor

Advertising

PRO

How Do You Qualify A Sales Lead?


I don't know about you, but our phones and emails are starting to get busy with enquiries. I've learned over the years that it's all too easy to answer the phone, arrange a consultation and then spend a couple of hours with a prospective client…

Read more…
Comments: 0