We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

What really is the outlook for farmland values? EE-I-HIGH-OR-LOW?

124

Comments

  • lemonjelly
    lemonjelly Posts: 8,014 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker Mortgage-free Glee!
    chucky wrote: »
    you really are a creep sometimes - i bet at school you were teachers pet!!

    dirty wolves, dirty wolves!!

    Not me. I'm far too quiet & unassuming...
    It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
  • ninky_2
    ninky_2 Posts: 5,872 Forumite
    Are you sure?

    I think it's often the opposite, to be honest. More land is accessible than it used to be.

    how do you work that out? i'm interested.
    Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron
  • Davesnave
    Davesnave Posts: 34,741 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ceridwen wrote: »
    .... the more people there are - then the more countryside is needed for recreation purposes as well. it doesnt feel much like recreation being out in the countryside - UNLESS theres very few other people also out taking their leisure in the same area of countryside.

    Which brings us neatly back round to Britain has way too many people...:(

    This is how you and I see it, but the behaviour of the majority says otherwise. Go to any popular beach and the number of persons present decreases in direct proportion to the distance from the car park.

    Maybe it is fortunate that the herd instinct prevails, because, I agree, there's a hell of a lot of us, but my family haven't had any real difficulty in finding quiet, natural places, even close to populated areas. e.g. around Brum, where we did quite a bit of walking in '09. :)

    Most people are 'interested' in the natural world, until viewing it means making a physical effort, as opposed to recording 'Springwatch.' It's ironic that the more people show an interest in a location/species, the harder it becomes to sustain it in its natural state.
  • ninky wrote: »
    how do you work that out? i'm interested.

    Land reserved for royalty turned into publically accessible land - Greenwich Park, Hyde Park, New Forest.

    More recently, creation of National Parks.

    More recent still, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
    ...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.
  • ninky_2
    ninky_2 Posts: 5,872 Forumite
    Land reserved for royalty turned into publically accessible land - Greenwich Park, Hyde Park, New Forest.

    More recently, creation of National Parks.

    More recent still, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.


    not much 'open access' land though where you have a right to roam across the land - only footpaths etc. in fact there are only around 4000 square miles of 'open access' land in england and wales out of a total of almost 60 000 square miles of total land.

    http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/index/visiting/outdoors/walking/openaccess_and_crow.htm
    Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron
  • It's still more rather than less!
    ...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.
  • ninky_2
    ninky_2 Posts: 5,872 Forumite
    It's still more rather than less!

    compared to when?
    even when william the conqueror created the new forest for his deer local people continued to be able to collect firewood and keep stock on it.
    Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron
  • ninky wrote: »
    compared to when?
    even when william the conqueror created the new forest for his deer local people continued to be able to collect firewood and keep stock on it.

    Compared with before the 2000 Act.
    ...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.
  • ninky_2
    ninky_2 Posts: 5,872 Forumite
    Compared with before the 2000 Act.

    sorry but didn't we have parks etc before the 2000. which specific areas of land did this act give access to that we didn't have access to before? and by access what to you actually mean? there's a big difference between being able to use a footpath and being able to roam on land, forage, camp etc.
    Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron
  • blueboy43
    blueboy43 Posts: 575 Forumite
    edited 24 September 2010 at 10:04AM
    ninky wrote: »
    sorry but didn't we have parks etc before the 2000. which specific areas of land did this act give access to that we didn't have access to before? and by access what to you actually mean? there's a big difference between being able to use a footpath and being able to roam on land, forage, camp etc.

    The 2000 act gives the right to;

    "Walk freely" on 4000 square miles of "access land". ie it specifically means you don't need to keep to the paths.

    This is a clear access improvement on the previous situation where access was generally via ancient rights of way (footpaths).

    Can you camp ? No, but then neither can you ride a horse or drive a 4 wheeled vehicle, fish or light fires.
    There has to be some balance between access and a free for all where Jeremy Clarksons can tear up the countryside damaging it for years.
    But you can picnic or climb.

    Can you forage ? - well yes and no. You can pick wild fruits (blackberries & mushrooms) as long as you are not picking them for sale. You can't pick commercially grown apples for example.

    The above applies to England & Wales. Scotland is different legislation.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.