Jim Webster wrote in message
...

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...

Hedges are important reserves for species that previously
occupied niches in the 'wildwood' and it is because of this,
not for their landscape value or their 'naturalness', that
they are objects for conservation today.

The problem is that they are a management tool which is, in
many cases, no longer necessary
[...]
If the state wishes to preserve these obsolete practices then
obviously the state should pay for their preservation

Spot on, Jim. We_should_, indeed we must, pay farmers for good
stewardship, raising some of the money in the form of fines
levied on those who practise bad stewardship. As I'm sure you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

I've got my cheque book ready! How much do you need?

John Morgan writes

Spot on, Jim. We_should_, indeed we must, pay farmers for good
stewardship, raising some of the money in the form of fines
levied on those who practise bad stewardship.

The problem with this is defining 'good stweardship'.
One man's 'good stewardship' is another mans 'bad'.

For example a conventional farmer might reasonably say that organic
farming is bad stewardship and vice-versa. Both might object to
reversion to the wild, but ecologists might consider it good.

Whether its good or bad depends greatly on what you strive to achieve
and even what you actually achieve (which may not be intentional).

As I'm sure you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.

I've got my cheque book ready! How much do you need?

Of course given appropriate funding one's aims might change.
But that's quite another matter too.

No realistic amount of money would make me plant any more trees, for
example. Simply because once planted they can in effect never be removed
due to legislation.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.
Use
still functions.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:19:53 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.


Actually it's mine. I lay claim to the lot. It was promised to me in a
dream one night, after I'd polished off a bottle and a quarter of
Bells. I can't remember any details though.

--

Paul


(Watch this space)

"Paul Rooney" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:19:53 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.


Actually it's mine. I lay claim to the lot.

then take it

Jim Webster

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:57:20 +0100, Paul Rooney wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:19:53 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.


Actually it's mine. I lay claim to the lot. It was promised to me in a
dream one night, after I'd polished off a bottle and a quarter of
Bells. I can't remember any details though.

One of the details is that your promised land has the historical name
Mesopotamia. Your presence there is required urgently. You need to pacify
your tenants.

--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from uba)

"In the beginning was The Tautology."

Oz wrote in message
...
John Morgan writes

As I'm sure you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs
to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or
even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.

He no doubt has a Land Certificate that guarantees ownership of
the land. I had one for a parcel of land that the government
wanted to build a road on. It turned out not to be worth the
paper it was printed on. If the state wants your land, for any
reason whatsoever, it's as good as gone. THAT'S how much it
belongs to him.
[...]
No realistic amount of money would make me plant any more
trees, for
example. Simply because once planted they can in effect never
be removed
due to legislation.

I find that difficult to believe. Plantation trees are a crop as
much as wheat or sheep. Seems your government has screwed up
somewhere and needs to have the error of its ways pointed out to
it.

John Morgan writes

He no doubt has a Land Certificate that guarantees ownership of
the land. I had one for a parcel of land that the government
wanted to build a road on. It turned out not to be worth the
paper it was printed on.

Well it is, but in certain circumstances the government assumes certain
powers,

If the state wants your land, for any
reason whatsoever, it's as good as gone.

They will pay a 'fair price', which is regrettably usually substantially
less than the owner considers it worth.

THAT'S how much it
belongs to him.

Still about as good as it gets.

No realistic amount of money would make me plant any more
trees, for
example. Simply because once planted they can in effect never
be removed
due to legislation.

I find that difficult to believe. Plantation trees are a crop as
much as wheat or sheep.

No problem, you can fell a woodland but invariably the license that
permits that specifies that it shall be replanted within XX years and
maintained properly thereafter. So these can be removed, but only if you
immediately replace them.

Trees elsewhere still require a license to fell, with much the same
result.

Trees that have been inadvertently been left to grow to a significant
size in a garden in a conservation area, are definitely there for good.
The examples of this I could give would make your hair curl.

Seems your government has screwed up
somewhere and needs to have the error of its ways pointed out to
it.

Completely pointless. They are so clueless they don't understand the
words you use. Trees are GOOD and should NEVER be cut down under ANY
circumstance....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.
Use
still functions.

Oz wrote:

Trees that have been inadvertently been left to grow to a significant
size in a garden in a conservation area, are definitely there for
good. The examples of this I could give would make your hair curl.

Not in a conservation area so perhaps it is different, but planning
conditions requiring the retention of hedges, shrubs and trees seem to be
ineffective in keeping same around here.

Bungalow opposite me was demolished and replaced with a large pair of semis.
The plot had substantial hedges containing a number of moderate size trees
on two sides, along the road frontage and down the side adjacent to a
bridleway. There was a planning requirement to retain existing trees,
shrubs and hedges within the site. The front hedge was completely removed,
the side hedge was thinned substantially and some trees removed. The
purchaser of the semi alongside the bridleway immediately altered the house
and applied for planning permission to build a double garage in the front
garden with a wall right against what remained of the hedge. I objected,
pointing out that the hedge would have to be removed to prevent the roots
causing subsidence. Plans were passed, garage is now built and all the
remaining hedge and the few remaining trees removed (apart from a sickly old
oak). I looked at the planning report. It gave the impression that
planning permission was a foregone conclusion and they just looked for words
to placate the objectors. Wrote to my councillor and, eventually, received
a reply from the planning department that included the following paragraph:

"In approving the application the council took the view that the garage
would not undermine the health and wellbeing of any visually important
trees. Furthermore, a condition has been imposed seeking the retention of
trees, shrubs and hedges within the site. We are also hopeful that in the
next planting season, new planting will take place within the bridleway to
replace hedging that was previously lost. Concerns about how this planting
might undermine the stability of the garage in the future are speculative at
this stage."

As I said in my response to my councillor, "A requirement to retain trees,
shrubs and hedges seems to have become a hope that they might be replaced."

Why do they impose conditions that they have no intention of enforcing?

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Old Codger writes
Not in a conservation area so perhaps it is different, but planning
conditions requiring the retention of hedges, shrubs and trees seem to be
ineffective in keeping same around here.

There are planning departments and planning departments.....

You know which sort I have.....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.
Use
still functions.

"Old Codger" wrote in message
...

[snip]


"In approving the application the council took the view that the garage
would not undermine the health and wellbeing of any visually important
trees. Furthermore, a condition has been imposed seeking the retention
of
trees, shrubs and hedges within the site. We are also hopeful that in
the
next planting season, new planting will take place within the bridleway
to
replace hedging that was previously lost. Concerns about how this
planting
might undermine the stability of the garage in the future are speculative
at
this stage."

As I said in my response to my councillor, "A requirement to retain
trees,
shrubs and hedges seems to have become a hope that they might be
replaced."

Why do they impose conditions that they have no intention of enforcing?


I reckon the key to this is in the "visually important" phrase. Our house
is listed, largely because of its age rather than any particular
architectural significance, it's just a typical rectangular block of a
farmhouse with a thatched roof on top. Around it are ancient hedges, older
than the house no doubt, and a few very old oaks, the two pollards near the
house may well be as old as the house, if not older. If these trees were
in the village, or the edge of the nearest town they would have
preservation orders on them, and some might assume that this was beacuse of
their age or ecological importance, but that wouldn'd really be the case,
it would be because they would form part of the view. Where they are they
simply form part of the landscape, it's just "trees".

It's only when trees are close to settlements that they become important as
individuals. At least that's how it seems under the present planing
regime. Oh, unless that is you want to build something, and then they
might, sometimes, become an argument against - so of course many are
destroyed before applications are even made - just in case.

Michael Saunby

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...
Oz wrote in message
...
John Morgan writes

As I'm sure you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs
to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or
even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.

He no doubt has a Land Certificate that guarantees ownership of
the land. I had one for a parcel of land that the government
wanted to build a road on. It turned out not to be worth the
paper it was printed on. If the state wants your land, for any
reason whatsoever, it's as good as gone. THAT'S how much it
belongs to him.

that has always happened, but even states are not eternal. There has been
trouble caused by the collapse of states in Eastern Europe and the land
being returned to its previous owners.
In any argument between the citizen and the state, the rights or the citizen
are easily over ridden, but the ease of over riding them doesn't in itself
nullify the rights, it merely shows that without power, rights aren't worth
a great deal

But then we always knew that

[...]
No realistic amount of money would make me plant any more
trees, for
example. Simply because once planted they can in effect never
be removed
due to legislation.

I find that difficult to believe. Plantation trees are a crop as
much as wheat or sheep. Seems your government has screwed up
somewhere and needs to have the error of its ways pointed out to
it.

It is absolutely true. Indeed I know of cases where farmers have loaned
fields to local cricket clubs etc on a casual, rent free basis, only to have
them suddenly taken using compulsory purchase powers by the local authority
who were worried that the local people might lose 'a significant amenity' if
the farmer changed his mind

Jim Webster

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...

Jim Webster wrote in message
...

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...

Hedges are important reserves for species that previously
occupied niches in the 'wildwood' and it is because of this,
not for their landscape value or their 'naturalness', that
they are objects for conservation today.

The problem is that they are a management tool which is, in
many cases, no longer necessary
[...]
If the state wishes to preserve these obsolete practices then
obviously the state should pay for their preservation

Spot on, Jim. We_should_, indeed we must, pay farmers for good
stewardship, raising some of the money in the form of fines
levied on those who practise bad stewardship. As I'm sure you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

I've got my cheque book ready! How much do you need?

none, just arrange for food to be sold at an economic price. You can then
pay benefit to those who cannot afford food.

But remember for every quango that tells me this is good stewardship,
another ngo wanders by and wants me to stop it immediately because it is bad

so I do what my ancestors have done, we just ignore them all because by the
time you can change to do what they tell you, they'll be telling you to do
something different

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote in message
...

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...

Jim Webster wrote in message
...

[...]
If the state wishes to preserve these obsolete practices
then
obviously the state should pay for their preservation

Spot on, Jim. We_should_, indeed we must, pay farmers for
good
stewardship, raising some of the money in the form of fines
levied on those who practise bad stewardship. As I'm sure
you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

I've got my cheque book ready! How much do you need?

none, just arrange for food to be sold at an economic price.
You can then
pay benefit to those who cannot afford food.

I've already tried that. They used the money to make more
children, who then, out of desperation, felled all the forest on
the mountains above their town and got drowned in this week's
flood.

But remember for every quango that tells me this is good
stewardship,
another ngo wanders by and wants me to stop it immediately
because it is bad.

That's because they are making decisions without talking to the
people on the ground. I do not envisage decisions on methods of
stewardship being implimented without lengthy discussion right
across the board.

so I do what my ancestors have done, we just ignore them all
because by the
time you can change to do what they tell you, they'll be
telling you to do
something different.

Can't say I blame you.