Extinction of Wild Life Species

[said]

One in ten of our Wild life species is becoming extinct! Who cares? What does it matter?

It matters because nature creates a balance to all life forms. Wild life is necessary to our own food chains keeping soils enriched to grow crops and to pollinate crops. Trees and shrubs provide the conditions for our health and reduce pollution, algae provides for cleaner waters for fish to live in. The majority of wild life provides massive benefits to human life.

The more building and industrialisation and use of pesticides that occurs in the UK, the greater the danger of extinction of wildlife.

2016 State of Nature report:
Sir David Attenborough, who wrote the foreword to the report, said: “The natural world is in serious trouble and it needs our help as never before. We continue to lose the precious wildlife that enriches our lives and is essential to the health and well-being of those who live in the UK.”
"The UK has lost significantly more nature over the long term than the global average, the report said" The Guardian.

Should building and industrialisation keep continuing in response to demand - or should there be more efforts to use existing and defunct buildings? Is housing really so much in demand when there are more than 1.5 million houses for sale in the UK on Right Move?

[Toodles McGinty]

Sir David Attenborough, who wrote the foreword to the report, said: “The natural world is in serious trouble and it needs our help as never before. We continue to lose the precious wildlife that enriches our lives and is essential to the health and well-being of those who live in the UK.”
"The UK has lost significantly more nature over the long term than the global average, the report said" The Guardian.

Should building and industrialisation keep continuing in response to demand - or should there be more efforts to use existing and defunct buildings? Is housing really so much in demand when there are more than 1.5 million houses for sale in the UK on Right Move?

I think one of the problems is we are giving over so much of our land to agriculture that we aren't really considering the consequences. I know a lot of farmers give some land at the edges of their fields to wild areas, but not all. We have to maintain some kind of balance with nature, or we are at the 'if bees are wiped out...' situation.

Housing is a priority, but the infrastructure isn't there. Nor are the funds for affordable housing. We can't just take property from owners because it might be empty, but maybe we should regulate landlords more.

I shouldn't worry. We'll probably have wiped each other out or be under 10 foot of water in 50 years. But I guarantee that the world and nature will survive.

[Alikado]

I think one of the problems is we are giving over so much of our land to agriculture that we aren't really considering the consequences. I know a lot of farmers give some land at the edges of their fields to wild areas, but not all. We have to maintain some kind of balance with nature, or we are at the 'if bees are wiped out...' situation.

Housing is a priority, but the infrastructure isn't there. Nor are the funds for affordable housing. We can't just take property from owners because it might be empty, but maybe we should regulate landlords more.

I shouldn't worry. We'll probably have wiped each other out or be under 10 foot of water in 50 years. But I guarantee that the world and nature will survive.

The problem with agriculture is they want bigger and bigger fields this erodes a lot more of the fringes than the token gestures the farmers don't cultivate.
The trouble with house building is it is mostly in the hands of the big builders who want to build the vast estates of all the same boxes, not the small pockets that local builders used to develop which gave the areas character. There are vast areas of land tied up by investors who see the cost of land rising, empty properties similarly, how many of the countries empty shops have empty flats / storerooms attached that could be easily let out / redeveloped?

[Lamparilla]

I'm not making a party political point here (so please don't hijack the thread with the usual bickering ), but I remember under one of the last Labour governments, Gordon Brown announced a package of very generous grants (90% I believe) to decontaminate 'brownfield' sites in urban and suburban areas, e.g. where there had been petrol stations before Tesco etc. gobbled up the market, for small house building projects.


However, as said above, the big builders aren't interested in small projects like this. I don't know if these grants are still available, but I don't think there was much take-up.



In Southport, we just demolish pubs

[tom83]

I'm not making a party political point here (so please don't hijack the thread with the usual bickering ), but I remember under one of the last Labour governments, Gordon Brown announced a package of very generous grants (90% I believe) to decontaminate 'brownfield' sites in urban and suburban areas, e.g. where there had been petrol stations before Tesco etc. gobbled up the market, for small house building projects.

Unfortunately the grants still are not enough to make it financially viable to develop brown sites. Even now it is still cheaper to buy and build on Green Belt land, than it is to redevelop a brownfield site. The government know this, but are seemingly ignoring it to provide affordable housing, which isn't that affordable.

The government is selling off areas of greenbelt, including floodplains and agriculture to the highest bidder, with no consideration to wildlife, surroundings or neighbouring properties. While brownfield sites are left relatively ignored.

[Lamparilla]

Unfortunately the grants still are not enough to make it financially viable to develop brown sites. Even now it is still cheaper to buy and build on Green Belt land, than it is to redevelop a brownfield site. The government know this, but are seemingly ignoring it to provide affordable housing, which isn't that affordable.

The government is selling off areas of greenbelt, including floodplains and agriculture to the highest bidder, with no consideration to wildlife, surroundings or neighbouring properties. While brownfield sites are left relatively ignored.

Thanks - it doesn't really surprise me, to be honest. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to realise that planning applications aren't as transparent as they appear to be. I guess it's a question of how much council tax will be generated by larger developments.

[said]

Thanks - it doesn't really surprise me, to be honest. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to realise that planning applications aren't as transparent as they appear to be. I guess it's a question of how much council tax will be generated by larger developments.

And the rest! Land is offered by local councils to the Government for Building projects, the Councils receive generous payments for all land offered. The houses are built costing a contractor approximately £75/£80K each and sold for a minimum of £150K, many are sold much above this. The houses bring in Council Tax as you say, but tied in with each house is a ground rent which costs a few hundred a year to the new owner and is paid to the contractor. If this ground rent was to be bought up immediately it would cost the new owner approximately £1/1.5K - but there is a clause to say that the ground rent cannot be bought up for seven years. By which time the contractor has sold them over to debt company and if the house purchaser wishes to buy it out then it would cost around £10K. The house owner cannot change the lay out of the garden, nor build any structures on it, nor build any extensions to the house without gaining permission and to request permission it costs just under £1000. Many of the houses are sold under the Government first time buyers scheme, where a loan is made available for the deposit and the repayments are to be paid along with the mortgage repayments.
Should the owner decide to move in the near future - they will have to repay the full mortgage on the sale of the house plus an amount greater to the loan that was taken out since interest would have caused it to increase. If the houses are sold within a short period of purchase the owner is placed into serious debt. In addition to that - the new house is no longer 'new' and would have reduced in value unless the cost of houses increases which does not look likely at present. The houses also lose value because new owners who view the properties see a brand new house on an empty building site - they do not realise that busy roads will also run alongside their new isolated properties, as those at Kew are about to find out.

[tom83]

See you're looking at the wrong end of the development of a house, the damage is done before a brick is laid.

Imagine you want to build on a field next to a river, which every so often floods. You buy the field for a pittance because it floods, then you bring in a ground "improvement" company. This company will then "develop" the ground using one of a number of techniques. Usually this will involve compacting the ground, removing any water, and then building a platform on top of this to raise the ground above the flood line. You can then build houses or whatever on this platform.

What this does besides "improving" the ground for building, is completely alters the water table in that area, as once the water is gone, the ground is so tightly compacted, it will never return. So this actually raises the water table in another area, which will cause flooding in an area that hasn't had flooding previously.

This is not even going into landscape adjustments which also happen as a result, rivers changing course etc. The affect on the environment and wildlife cannot be conclusively be recorded as the practice is still young and long term effects cannot be recorded fully yet.

But this is still a cheaper option than redeveloping a brown site.

[said]

See you're looking at the wrong end of the development of a house, the damage is done before a brick is laid.

Imagine you want to build on a field next to a river, which every so often floods. You buy the field for a pittance because it floods, then you bring in a ground "improvement" company. This company will then "develop" the ground using one of a number of techniques. Usually this will involve compacting the ground, removing any water, and then building a platform on top of this to raise the ground above the flood line. You can then build houses or whatever on this platform.

What this does besides "improving" the ground for building, is completely alters the water table in that area, as once the water is gone, the ground is so tightly compacted, it will never return. So this actually raises the water table in another area, which will cause flooding in an area that hasn't had flooding previously.

This is not even going into landscape adjustments which also happen as a result, rivers changing course etc. The affect on the environment and wildlife cannot be conclusively be recorded as the practice is still young and long term effects cannot be recorded fully yet.

But this is still a cheaper option than redeveloping a brown site.

Yes, I can see that it would be a cheaper option - that is unless the flooding affects another new building site, then it could get expensive.

[Toodles McGinty]

See you're looking at the wrong end of the development of a house, the damage is done before a brick is laid.

Imagine you want to build on a field next to a river, which every so often floods. You buy the field for a pittance because it floods, then you bring in a ground "improvement" company. This company will then "develop" the ground using one of a number of techniques. Usually this will involve compacting the ground, removing any water, and then building a platform on top of this to raise the ground above the flood line. You can then build houses or whatever on this platform.

What this does besides "improving" the ground for building, is completely alters the water table in that area, as once the water is gone, the ground is so tightly compacted, it will never return. So this actually raises the water table in another area, which will cause flooding in an area that hasn't had flooding previously.

This is not even going into landscape adjustments which also happen as a result, rivers changing course etc. The affect on the environment and wildlife cannot be conclusively be recorded as the practice is still young and long term effects cannot be recorded fully yet.

But this is still a cheaper option than redeveloping a brown site.

Sadly, it seems that the builders are often nice and tight with someone in power on the local council, so these developments are allowed without a thought for the consequences. Perhaps environmental groups should be consulted before certain developments are allowed.

While not house building, we do have an example of such companies being contracted locally, that must be connected with someone on the council, with the shoddy re-covering of Lord Street, along with the mysterious disappearance of Southport tiles that go along with it. No thought to the quality or history, and repairs having to be done within months of completion.

[Ceam]

Is housing really so much in demand when there are more than 1.5 million houses for sale in the UK on Right Move?

With the residents of said houses looking for another property. It's not how many are for sale, but how many are empty.


Only solution is the culling of the human race. Fact is we are to effective at what we do.

[said]

With the residents of said houses looking for another property. It's not how many are for sale, but how many are empty.


Only solution is the culling of the human race. Fact is we are to effective at what we do.

The culling of the human race is in progress now, actually.