Shall we destroy some ancient woodland?

Never come across housing estates standing empty down here, the usual thing down here is to move everyone out and then rebuild on the same site, but more densely.

 

Housing shortage eh?

http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/empty-homes-statistice-201112/

 

Blimey have you seen the stats for Yorkshire and Humber....i shouldn't be surprised really...it's the same with the commercial properties around here too...they build a brand new shopping precinct with half the units empty and where the shops have moved into the new building the rest of the town is derelict .....

 

Until about 10 years ago, Redcar was a thriving little town. The high street had plenty of shops and plenty of customers, and there was a buzzing nightlife scene too. Quite possibly a contributing factor was the fact that the town was very easy to find your way around. Then the council decided to 'improve' it.

A very popular workies club was demolished, along with several entire streets, to make way for Morrisons (quite how they thought they'd find enough customers after knocking down the streets is another thing). The nice simple cross-roads junction was replaced with a ridiculous wiggly nightmare junction, and a new shopping area was built. This all happened at one end of town.

Lots of things happened. The shops at the opposite end from where it all happened, suddenly lost all their customers. Many of them had to close down as a result. It wasn't long before the nightlife followed. Who wants to go on a pub crawl through a patch of town that looks closed? So many of those went too. A few more that actually were in the right end of town were demolished anyway, with no logical reason as far as I can see. New bars have opened, some of them in the deserted former shops, but they don't really thrive. Its a case of well established pubs being replaced with trendy (expensive) bars. Publicans that knew their customerbase vs customers that didn't when they opened. They learned very quickly in most cases, but it was too late, word was out, "don't go to such and such a bar unless you've just remortgaged your house and sold your soul".

 

Pouring out a nice pint of Devil's Aadvocaat,

We don't really have much ancient woodland here anymore. Most of the woodland we consider old has been managed for 2,000 years or so.

The only true wildwood I can think of is Wistmans wood on Dartmoor.

Even the "New Forest" is only a thousand years old and has been managed for most of that time.

 

Very true Mr Zigs, but the key difference is, managed or not, it is well established. There's some woods near us that really aren't that old in the grand scheme of things, but there are mature trees in it, young saplings, and all manner of things going on in the different layers. If someone was to level that, it would take probably 100 years to get something like it back again, and I can't imagine all the more vulnerable species that live there could wait that long.

Also just near us is some much newer woodland. Its maybe 10 years old. There's stuff happening in there, but not a fraction of the diversity you find in other woods.

 

There are, but they are looking at where they can make the most money from building. Look at all that lovely greenbelt around London.

 

I live in the greenbelt in the outskirts of London, just on the boundary of London and Hertfordshire and cant imagine life without these woodlands and grasslands... The reason we bought a house here is this beautiful landscape and love morning and evening walks...
We lived in London for a while but got bored of all the concrete and pollution... Everyone knows trees and green landscapes are good but when it comes to money making the politicians dnt see logic...
they should look to develop cities/areas in rest of the country than piling on houses in and around London..
And there is no brainer when you think about getting rid of ancient woodland.. It should be an absolute No!
I remember when we went to scotland last year and you could see all the havoc caused by this cutting old trees and planting new ones.. you loose the beautiful lush forest and are left with bald spots.. and the new trees take years to come to same beauty and all the wildlife is lost forever...

 

There are plenty of farms growing subsidized crops, that could be argued should be used for building, before taking ancient woodland or peoples recreational areas.
I'm not saying its a great idea, but most farms these days are pretty sterile and although farmers consider themselves "custodians of the countryside", it is mostly about making money, being that it is a business.
Not really trying to knock farmers, I just think if extra land is needed,(although I often doubt it is), then maybe the odd farm should go first, before wild life and nature.

 

The village where we have lived since 2001 was created as a new village since the old original village was abandoned many years ago and the ground had been returned to agriculture but when the builders took it on many ancient hedgerows and trees were destroyed to make way for houses and roads.The builders brought in landscapers to replace the hedges and put in new trees,but it is too late the damage has been done and it will many many years before those hedgerows are at a height and full of wildlife/flowers that were once so prolific.

What saddens us when we go up to Scotland for our holidays is the acres of forestry that have been cut down for the timber of the fir trees and then the stumps are just left insitu for years and years and no attempt is made to remove them or to even plant new trees of the variety that was in the landscape before the fir trees were planted.Now that is an eyesore

 

So true....
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/top-10-reasons-why-forests-matter