Brian not ranting about Salachry and housing
Introduction
Craignish residents will soon have a community ballot to determine whether community ownership of forestry land at Salachary is desirable. The proposed purchase will mean the community owns, manages and benefits from a small forest. There is also the opportunity to utilise our diverse talent pool by creating some woodland crofts on the land giving this project a community focus both now and into the future. Below are some points to consider before you make this important decision.
Costs
The Scottish Forestry Commission are insisting on 80% tree cover being maintained regardless of whatever else is done. On the surface this sounds like a fair number but when you take into account that in the 125ha for sale there is approximately 7ha arable land, 1ha open water and undisclosed amounts of bog, roads and designated open space the SFC barely manage 80% tree cover.
The community is being asked to also apply for £120,000 to buy the standing timber even though until 3 or 4 years ago it cost money to have the trees removed before they fell over. No one is guaranteeing the price won’t drop again. Much of the standing mature timber is only worth £3 per tonne at about 300 tonnes per hectare. That is £900 of timber per hectare and it took 45 years to reach this astonishing yield. The better quality timber is valued at £10 per tonne with 400 tonnes to the hectare.
Grants for paths, signage and training are also being applied for to enable a safe route between Ardfern and Salachary and proper access in the forest this is the direction we wish to take but why does it all have to be done at the same time is it purely for its harassment value.
An incredible amount of time and effort has already been spent on this project and some community members have done an amazing limbo act to dance and weave their way through the red tape which is constantly hindering any progress but the reality is the community will need to find a little less than £15,000 to purchase 125 hectares of forestry land (a little over £100 per ha) as long as various government bodies can justify shuffling some paperwork about.
Timeframe
Building regulations are all well and good but for a house which is your own home, is built by your own efforts and has structural integrity should it really be necessary to for example have a bathroom fan and disabled access before I can move in when the other options open are to live in a car, a tent or a cardboard box. I could be persuaded to agree these features are included before a house is rented out or even sold but surely a reasonable timeframe could be allowed in an effort to make these houses affordable in the immediate future. The savings on rent would for most people give them an excess of a few thousand pounds a year to make these improvements.
Affordability
It seems Argyll & Bute planning department also wish us to jump through hoops they say we should not build on the skyline, on steep land, on boggy land, on rocky outcrops or too near the road. In the local plan Salachary is currently designated as either sensitive or very sensitive countryside, some of it is also classed as an area of panoramic quality as is much of the west coast of Argyll. We should accept some planning restrictions to protect the countryside but if 5 or 6 million people are allowed to live in Scotland there should be secure affordable accommodation to house them. Surely housing its population is one of the most important things a nation can do.
When available (often winter only) renting a poxy wee white painted shoebox house locally costs from about £500pcm. The tenant can often be evicted at short notice, is normally not allowed to improve the property and despite the cost has nothing to show for it (the owner of course will have used the tenants rent money to pay the mortgage, make a profit and still have the property). Bear in mind that many of these winter lets do not meet current building regulations.
If the community becomes landlord for Salachary we could ensure the council designations are maintained or even improved upon by allowing low impact eco-friendly structures to be built with local timber. With no labour cost the price of timber for a house could be as little as £2,000. Initial construction costs assuming a large level of self-building could be below £20,000, equivalent to 3 years rent for an absentee landlord who may not be spending locally.
Give us enough slack that we can grow our own fruit and vegetables, keep some chickens and have a garden. The land will remain wooded, eventually be transformed into native woodland with a sprinkling of fruit and nut trees, and be much more beautiful than the current Sitka plantation.
Conclusion
Lets face it most houses are like most cars and are subject to devaluation as soon as normal wear and tear removes their initial pristine showroom condition. Houses are only an investment if the land they sit on rises in value because not enough housing plots are available. Housing is not a commodity it is a basic human right.
If you own several houses, make enough rent to live on, want property and land values to continue rising and wish to protect your assets it may be in your interests to vote no to the Salachary proposal or indeed any future developments anywhere. Of course if you would welcome the enhanced contribution to our community and general society of a few local people who are empowered to believe in themselves, own their own home and run their own business you should vote yes to the proposal.
Lifestyle choice
Personally I would just like a house and workshop in the woods where I can be left alone to do research and experimentation on alternative energy and become as self sufficient as practical is that too much to ask?
The views in this article are those of Brian Wiles and not necessarily those of anyone else.
Author
Topic: Brian not ranting about Salachry and housing (Read 834 times)
Quick Reply