Protected species: good or bad selling point?

G_M

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I expect Ken Livingstone will be along to buy your house shortly.

I expect he wouldn't buy it himself - he'd use one of his companies for tax reasons....

Anyway, he's a commited London boy, so I doubt it!

amcluesent

What a 'mare to have them. Mowing the lawn or having a BBQ could be illegal.

jjlandlord

Now I understand the use of newt barriers...

Fuzzyness

as a buyer it wouldnt bother me if i didnt have any intention of extending the house. GCNs would only be an issue if you did want to build anything that disturbed their habitat i.e. anything wihtin 500 metres of the pond. then Natural England would or should be consulted and they would pose you more of an issue. not an insumountable one but an issue all the same.

andy.m_2

martinsurrey wrote: »

Only after a lot of expensive studies, and then only if a more suitable site is found, so you can’t just throw them in the local pond!

I speak from knowledge of a developer who had to do just that, and it cost £100,000+ (it was a big site though).

Its probably easier for the government to LEGALLY force you to sell them your house (a compulsory purchase order), than it is for you to LEGALLY evict GCN from your garden!

I work for a multi national construction firm, GCN's are a massive pain the !!!! and worse are the beardy wierdy "ban the bath" type hippy women who make it their life's quest to put the well being of GCN's before anything else, the type that wont wash because the soap may harm an owl in the deepest amazon somewhere.
I voted no way, simply because any buyer is walking into a world of as yet unknown pain and while they may seem cute and all endangered and all that, they are protected from on high and they carry grave consequences.

On a lighter note, a bearded lesbian protester may pay handsomly for a property with GCNs in residence

bouicca21

It would be a plus for me IF the pond itself was attractive. If the pond were ugly I'd want to fill it in so that would be a no no.

As for the grandchildren question - small children can be taught to live with a hazard if it's there all the time, it's when they visit places with a hazard they are not used to that things become dangerous (hence problems like mistaking granny's medicine for sweets). I wouldn't fill it in, just put a fence round it till they are older.

motherofstudents

Seriously, I wonder if you publicised it as a pond for sale with house included whether anyone would pay a premium ? Just a thought.

GDB2222

Do I get the impression that the GCNs would cut the potential number of buyers by about half, but there would be a few buyers who would pay a premium price for them? If so, it depends whether G_M wants to sell quickly or for the most money?

20400keith

I've got bats in the roof. When I wanted to re-roof (rafters needed replacing) I had a couple of visits from English Nature (at no cost) and a couple of requirements about timing of the work and leaving access for the bats into the roof space.

Five years on the roof has been sorted, the bats are still there, it didn't cost me anything extra (other than time).

I'm really happy living alongside nature, so I vote good selling point!

(and I'm not a bearded lesbian!).

Crazy_Diamond

I love ponds and wildlife but as a parent of a toddler I would be concerned about a pond as a hazard. You may find that it does put off families or grandparents.