In article .com,
wrote:
Hi

I am looking into the options for a 1/4 acre plot of grassed land that
I own at the rear of my garden. One possibility is to "cultivate" it
into a small wood, and this really appeals to me.

I would advise you not to hurry to plant trees too soon. There are many
new plots of woodland being planted, and there are fewer places where low
input grassland is retained, with the polarisation of the country to an
intensive grazing regime in the west, and intensive arable cultivation in
the east.

After a season, you will get an idea of the various grasses and emerging
flowers.

If you don't ever cut it it will very soon develop its own shrubs and trees
which in my view emerge into a better woodland than those planted in tubes.

Cutting the vegetation on a two or three yearly rotation may well be the
best option for the invertebrate communities which would support some of
the declining species of birds of farmland.

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago

"Nigel Cliffe" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
snip

Conversely, if it were planted with the sorts of timber which has
commercial
value (say as firewood or fencing / shed making), and the local woodman
contracted occaisionally to coppice crops from it (which would either run
your own heating, or could be sold), the change would be from agricultural
pasture to agricultural coppice, which, as BAC says, would not require
permission. This could fit with the OP's original aims of quick growing
and
attracting wildlife (including flowers, etc) - take some advice from the
local nature groups on the details.

If keeping chickens doesn't appeal, the "quiet" bit in the middle could be
loaned out occaisionally to a local sheep farmer to graze some animals.
And
thus its all still agricultural.



However, I agree with BAC that if the approach were more ornamental, or if
there is no longer a clear boundary between the garden and the new land,
then planning consents will probably be required.
I think the main concern of the planning authorities are around extending
gardens (and hence developed area) into agricultural areas.
They are particularly looking out for "sneaky development" where the land
is
extended, then a bit later planning permission for a building is sought,
and
finally the land is divided again into two (or more) plots.



Quite so - in the current planning climate it is exceptionally difficult to
refuse consent for 'brownfield' redevelopment of part of the garden of a
dwelling house. Hence the planners are very wary of garden extensions into
agricultural land.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi

I am looking into the options for a 1/4 acre plot of grassed land that
I own at the rear of my garden. One possibility is to "cultivate" it
into a small wood, and this really appeals to me.

Unfortunately, I'm totally ignorant on most things botanical....so I'm
in need of some guidance as to how I might get started. My objectives
are

i. relatively low cost & maintenance; i don't have much spare time
outside weekends

Its quite easy to take a walk in your local woods and collect some seeds.
Probably a little late now, best to do it in the autumn. I've got oaks,
hazelnuts, rowan, crab apple and guelder rose this way. I just put the seeds
in a pot outside over the winter and plant them out in spring.
I also have ash, sycamore, beech, birch and hawthorn that just appeared as
there are a lot of mature trees bordering my garden. However these volunteer
tree seedlings don't seem to appear in grassy areas, they come up in bare
ground.
Willows may be another option for fast and cheap. They grow very easily from
cuttings especially if the land is wet, so you can usually take more
cuttings within one season to increase your stock.

m.

wrote:
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 18:26:13 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes

Trust you to know about the grant sucking thresholds :-(

What an utterly pathetic remark :-(

No Malcolm; apt.

Please, please Angus, go back to posting your tendentious and ludicrous
nonsense about fake conservation so we can all have a good chuckle.

well, the good news is that this is a permitted development for
agricultural land as far as my council is concerned, so it's going to
happen The kids are really excited about it. I shall purchase the
book mentioned earlier in the thread and take it from there.

thanks everyone for your help.

On 7 Mar 2006 07:12:22 -0800, "Philip Hart" wrote:


wrote:
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 18:26:13 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes

Trust you to know about the grant sucking thresholds :-(

What an utterly pathetic remark :-(

No Malcolm; apt.

Please, please Angus, go back to posting your tendentious and ludicrous
nonsense about fake conservation so we can all have a good chuckle.


As a supporter of fake conservationi you obviously think their
dishonesty is nonsense. Says a lot about you :-(


Here's an example of fake conservation:


From Angus Macmillan. www.con-servation.org.uk

On 3 February 2005, Dr Mark Avery, Director of Conservation, of the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, circulated this media
release:


Royal Society for the Protection of Birds


Media Release


3 February 2005


Sir

Scientists at this week's climate change conference have issued a
succession of warnings about the dire consequences of climate change
for mankind and wildlife.

Plants, mammals and birds are heading for extinction; rising seas are
eroding coasts and swallowing up coastal homes; coral reefs are losing
their capacity to soak up carbon dioxide - the gas most responsible
for climate change - while storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves are
all set to increase in number. And all this, we have been told, could
happen far more quickly than we originally thought. We are calling it
'global warming' but more accurately, we are cooking our planet.

There are more than four million references to global warming on the
internet search engine Google but 'global overheating' merits just 123
mentions, 'global scorching', 175; 'global frying', 68; and even
'global heating' only 6,000! Yet none of these phrases is adequate
for the devastation we are facing.

Cooking our planet will disrupt and devastate all life and giving this
process the cosy name global warming only makes it easier for all of
us, especially politicians, to ignore the consequences.

Yours faithfully


Dr Mark Avery
Director of Conservation
RSPB
The Lodge
Sandy
SG19 2DL



As a result of this release I wrote the following letter to Dr Avery:


Dr Mark Avery
Director of Conservation
RSPB
The Lodge
Sandy
SG19 2DL


24 March 2005


An Open Letter

Dear Dr Avery

I was very interested to read your media release of 3 February 2005 in
which you refer to carbon dioxide as the gas most responsible for
climate change and that "cooking" our planet will disrupt and
devastate all life. I think most people would agree with you.

However, in the light of your comments, I wonder how you can justify
accepting the pages of adverts in your Birds magazine for extensive
travel, holiday accommodation and activities that are directly and
indirectly contributing to the cooking of our planet. Indeed, the
magazine itself, which I understand is mailed to most of your one
million members contributes to environmental damage by its production,
distribution and disposal.

The activities of your organisation in this respect smacks of double
standards at the very least, to dishonesty at worst.


Yours sincerely



A Macmillan.


PS. I hope you don't mind me copying your media release below for
information purposes.


A copy of the above media release was inserted here



Dr Avery replied by letter on 26 April 2005



Dear Mr Macmillan

Thank you for your letter dated 24th March, in connection with our
press release and your observations about the holiday advertising in
Birds Magazine.

I do agree that there is a dilemma here. On the one hand, overseas
holidays do, clearly, entail the emission of CO2. On the other, we
think that people will be more likely to remain enthusiastic about
wildlife and support its conservation if they have opportunities to
experience it first hand. We also firmly believe that many host
countries that are still rich in wildlife will only be prepared to
conserve that resource if they can see a demonstrable economic benefit
in doing so. Perhaps the World should not be so self centred and
fixated on material progress, but this is the challenge we are faced
with.

Under these circumstances, our policy is to press Government to
introduce measures such as aviation fuel tax, to help ensure that the
environmental cost of air travel is better reflected in the price; to
manage the growth in demand; and to abandon plans to develop new
airports on Greenfield sites, let alone important wildlife sites. If
accompanied by improvements to the rail infrastructure, to provide a
better alternative to domestic flights, we believe people can be
'encouraged' to ration their travel. The environmental damage caused
by air travel has been aired in Birds magazine, particularly in our
communications about the 'No Airport at Cliffe' campaign.

At the same time, we think it makes little sense not to recognise that
eco-tourism delivers tangible benefits that encourage habitat and
species conservation. We therefore believe it would be a bit odd if
the Society refused to carry adverts in Birds magazine for such tours.
We have discussed this at length internally, and have also taken into
account the views and advice of our partner organisations worldwide.
However, we will continue to keep our policy under regular review.

Having read some of your letters on the internet, it is clear that you
care passionately about the natural environment. Although there are
areas upon which we would clearly disagree, I do hope that you have
noticed that the conservation subjects mentioned in Birds magazine are
based on sound science. As a result of our scientific approach,
evidence suggests that governments listen to us and our members and we
do make a difference.

I have noticed you are not a member of the RSPB. Under the
circumstances, I hope you do not mind but I have taken the liberty of
including a membership form. I would also draw your attention to our
excellent 'Green Energy' product: RSPB Energy. This can be found at
www.rspbenergy.co.uk Signing up to this green energy package will
help to encourage the development of renewal energy sources in the UK


Underneath Dr Avery's signature, he wrote,

"PS. I really would encourage
you to sign up to RSPB Energy


I responded by letter on 1 May 2005.

Dr Mark Avery
RSPB
The Lodge
Sandy
Bedfordshire
SG19 2DL


Dear Dr Avery

Thank you for your letter of 26 April 2005.

I am pleased you agree the RSPB does have a dilemma, but I remain
unconvinced it is one that is being addressed honestly.

It is all very well to say "people will be more likely to remain
enthusiastic about wildlife and support its conservation if they have
opportunities to experience it first hand", but if you believe what
you wrote in your media release of 3 February 2005 you will appreciate
that your income generating travel advertisements, publications and
junk mail are contributing to the cooking of our planet, which will
"disrupt and devastate all life". It seems extremely odd that you
should encourage people to contribute to their own demise and to that
of wildlife.

This also applies to RSPB's reserves, which are marketed as tourist
attractions and visited by hundreds of thousands of motorists. Again,
this is exploiting nature for income, with the full knowledge that
operating visitor centres is environmentally damaging and contributing
to cooking the planet.

These double standards are morally reprehensible and downright
dishonest.

I also believe that the RSPB should not advocate or be involved in
killing members of some species to protect others. Indeed, in an
article in the BBC Wildlife Magazine in 2003 this practice was
condemned as fascism. This is also what some gamekeepers are doing to
raptors, which the RSPB rightly condemns. Seems you want your cake
and eat it.

Recently, RSPB Energy was censured by the Advertising Standards
Authority for misleading the public as to the environmental value of
its green energy scheme. It seems to me that this and other similar
schemes are little more than marketing ploys where questionable
conservationist organisations receive income from power generating
companies in return for access to an increased customer base.

If, as you say, your conservation subjects are based on sound science,
you should be able to justify the RSPB's current policies in terms of
conserving natural resources and reducing emissions by its own
activities, and by the activities it encourages in others. Otherwise,
the RSPB's very existence is based on a fake conservation platform and
contributing to the demise of all species on the planet.

For the record, I do not claim to be a conservationist or
environmentalist. I merely take the view that those who do should be
honest about it.


Yours sincerely

A Macmillan


Dr Avery didn't reply :-((




Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

wrote:
On 7 Mar 2006 07:12:22 -0800, "Philip Hart" wrote:


wrote:
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 18:26:13 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes

Trust you to know about the grant sucking thresholds :-(

What an utterly pathetic remark :-(

No Malcolm; apt.

Please, please Angus, go back to posting your tendentious and ludicrous
nonsense about fake conservation so we can all have a good chuckle.

As a supporter of fake conservationi you obviously think their
dishonesty is nonsense. Says a lot about you :-(

So doing nothing and supporting nothing is better, is it?

Here's an example of fake conservation:

[...]

Thanks for becoming your old, abnormal self once more.

[...]

For the record, I do not claim to be a conservationist or
environmentalist. I merely take the view that those who do should be
honest about it.


Yours sincerely

A Macmillan


Dr Avery didn't reply :-((

Why should he. He was being honest, as you requested.

wrote:
well, the good news is that this is a permitted development for
agricultural land as far as my council is concerned, so it's going to
happen The kids are really excited about it. I shall purchase the
book mentioned earlier in the thread and take it from there.

thanks everyone for your help.

Sorry, coming into this a bit late and I seem to have missed some posts
in the thread. Don't think anyone has mentioned another book which I
like and which I think you might find useful:

Caring for Small Woods, by Ken Broad, published by Earthscan,
ISBN: 1 85383 454 8

HTH

--
Holly, in France
Gite to let in Dordogne, now with pool.
http://la-plaine.chez-alice.fr

In message , Robert
writes
In message .com,
writes
Hi

I am looking into the options for a 1/4 acre plot of grassed land that
I own at the rear of my garden. One possibility is to "cultivate" it
into a small wood, and this really appeals to me.

Unfortunately, I'm totally ignorant on most things botanical....so I'm
in need of some guidance as to how I might get started. My objectives
are

i. relatively low cost & maintenance; i don't have much spare time
outside weekends
ii. attract wildlife
iii. a variety of trees, with emphasis on quick growing species (NOT
the dreaded leylandi !)
iv. maintain a small grassed area in the middle where one could
"escape" with a good book
v. encourage wild flowers to grow .

As I say, I'm pretty much clueless on this and am looking for advice on
how I might get started. Any good web links or organsiations would be
usuful.

There is some very basic information on the Woodland Trust's shop site
at http://www.native-tree-shop.com/
A very good start would be to read Chris Baines' 'How to make a
wildlife garden' which includes a list of native trees, their growth
habits and the degree to which they support insect species and by
extension other wildlife. It also discusses the all important woodland
edge and suitable wildflowers.

I was in the office today and happened across a booklet which may of
interest 'So you own a woodland' produced by the Forestry Commission (I
think it is a freebie). I don't think that it is on their website list
of publications at the moment but give them a ring on 0870 121 4180.
--
Robert

The message
from Robert contains these words:

I was in the office today and happened across a booklet which may of
interest 'So you own a woodland' produced by the Forestry Commission (I
think it is a freebie). I don't think that it is on their website list
of publications at the moment but give them a ring on 0870 121 4180.

Has anyone mentioned that you might get a grant for planting that area
of woodland? (Assuming it is agricultural land.)

Might i suggest that planting fast-growing trees (ash, aspen, sycamore,
chestnut, hazel, etc) is a good idea, and you can underplant them with
slower-growing species like oak, hornbeam, crab-apple, beech etc - *BUT*
when I looked into a similar plan, you had to get your trees from an
accredited supplier, and they had to conform to what amounts to EC
standards.

The way I read it at the time, this applied whether you were asking for
a grant or not, but - "I've really no idea how that durmast/sessile
hybrid oak got planted: it was probably squirrels wot done it innit."
would seem to be the answer.

If you can get a grant, there's probably nothing preventing you from
planting the minimum number of trees to qualify, and 'allowing the
phantom squirrels to play'.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

Rusty Hinge 2 wrote:
[...]
If you can get a grant, there's probably nothing preventing you from
planting the minimum number of trees to qualify, and 'allowing the
phantom squirrels to play'.

I once got a grant for planting trees on my property beside a public
path along next-door's field. I don't remember the details, except that
it turned out too late that I wasn't actually entitled for some reason,
but they didn't ask for the money back.

--
Mike.

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , Rusty Hinge 2
writes
The message
from Robert contains these words:

I was in the office today and happened across a booklet which may of
interest 'So you own a woodland' produced by the Forestry Commission (I
think it is a freebie). I don't think that it is on their website list
of publications at the moment but give them a ring on 0870 121 4180.

Has anyone mentioned that you might get a grant for planting that area
of woodland? (Assuming it is agricultural land.)

Yes, the smallest available woodland grant from the FC appears to be for
0.25 ha. The OP has 0.5 acre. There might be grants from other bodies that
would suit.

Contradicting yourself or me there! In an earlier post, I suggested there
may be a grant, you assumed from the FC and refuted my statement.

So in your opinion there MAY be grants available afterall?

JS

In message , John Smith
writes

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , Rusty Hinge 2
writes
The message
from Robert contains these words:

I was in the office today and happened across a booklet which may of
interest 'So you own a woodland' produced by the Forestry Commission (I
think it is a freebie). I don't think that it is on their website list
of publications at the moment but give them a ring on 0870 121 4180.

Has anyone mentioned that you might get a grant for planting that area
of woodland? (Assuming it is agricultural land.)

Yes, the smallest available woodland grant from the FC appears to be for
0.25 ha. The OP has 0.5 acre. There might be grants from other bodies that
would suit.

Contradicting yourself or me there! In an earlier post, I suggested there
may be a grant, you assumed from the FC and refuted my statement.

So in your opinion there MAY be grants available afterall?

To clarify - there is no minimum size for woodland creation under the
EWGS, see http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-6dcegu , however they
suggest that 'planting areas will normally be no less than 0.25 ha and
no narrower than 30m on average, with 15m as an absolute minimum width
at any point'
--
Robert

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , Rusty Hinge
2 writes
The message
from Robert contains these words:

I was in the office today and happened across a booklet which may of
interest 'So you own a woodland' produced by the Forestry Commission (I
think it is a freebie). I don't think that it is on their website list
of publications at the moment but give them a ring on 0870 121 4180.

Has anyone mentioned that you might get a grant for planting that area
of woodland? (Assuming it is agricultural land.)

Yes, the smallest available woodland grant from the FC appears to be for
0.25 ha. The OP has 0.5 acre. There might be grants from other bodies
that would suit.


Wasn't it 0.25 acres he said he had? I doubt whether public money would be
available to help finance the sort of small scale personal (as opposed to
commercial or conservation action plan inspired) project he has described.

However
http://handbooks.btcv.org.uk/handboo...nt/chapter/656

gives a rough guide and ideas on where to look for more detailed
information.

In fact the entire book "Tree Planting and Aftercare - ISBN 0946752257"
might be of interest to the OP. It may be read on line via the BTCV website
or purchased from their on line shop for £13.95.

On 8 Mar 2006 04:54:40 -0800, "Philip Hart" wrote:


wrote:
On 7 Mar 2006 07:12:22 -0800, "Philip Hart" wrote:


wrote:
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 18:26:13 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes

Trust you to know about the grant sucking thresholds :-(

What an utterly pathetic remark :-(

No Malcolm; apt.

Please, please Angus, go back to posting your tendentious and ludicrous
nonsense about fake conservation so we can all have a good chuckle.

As a supporter of fake conservationi you obviously think their
dishonesty is nonsense. Says a lot about you :-(

So doing nothing and supporting nothing is better, is it?

Supporting fakes is worse than doing nothing.



Here's an example of fake conservation:

[...]

Thanks for becoming your old, abnormal self once more.

[...]

For the record, I do not claim to be a conservationist or
environmentalist. I merely take the view that those who do should be
honest about it.


Yours sincerely

A Macmillan


Dr Avery didn't reply :-((

Why should he. He was being honest, as you requested.

Tellin us not to "cook the planet" and selling adverts for world wide
travel is not honest :-(


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk