Woodland hippies Commune
Woodland hippies Commune
Has anyone seen the news about the hippy commune in Dartmoor national park? They bought the woodland 16 years ago and had temporary planning but have now been given eviction notice, they live an amazing lifestyle, i personally think it is awful what is happening to them.
Up in the wet South Lakeland
Re: Woodland hippies Commune
Hadn't heard about this so I searched and found this , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tures.html . It does seem a real shame that their lifestyle is under threat. The comments on the link aren't very positive though with things like "leftie soap dodgers" being banded about.
Re: Woodland hippies Commune
That is where i saw it first, i have commented on it, very positively.
Up in the wet South Lakeland
-
i11matic1795
Re: Woodland hippies Commune
The Daily Mail are never going to write a fair article about hippies though..grenfell wrote:Hadn't heard about this so I searched and found this , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tures.html . It does seem a real shame that their lifestyle is under threat. The comments on the link aren't very positive though with things like "leftie soap dodgers" being banded about.
I feel sorry for them, if they're doing no harm I don't understand why they shouldn't live there, the world has gone crazy, a person can't live on land that they own.
-
preparedsurrey
- Posts: 544
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:33 pm
- Location: Area 3
Re: Woodland hippies Commune
Their mistake was probably trying to be legal and get planning rather than just living there and then applying for a certificate of lawful existence after 5 years. Can see both sides of it to be honest without planning permission and building control every square inch of land would be covered with people living in sheds and shacks. I see enough of people living in garages locally, let alone all the illegal shed lets as you get nearer London.
If guns are outlawed then only the outlaws will have guns....
Re: Woodland hippies Commune
Its pretty bad especially for all of us who aspire to be able to own land, you then hear of peoples who now own the land and cant live on it. Maybe if they had 1960's prefabs things would have been different?
reperio a solutio
Resident and Co-Ordinator of AREA 2
Area 2 = Hampshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Bucks
Resident and Co-Ordinator of AREA 2
Area 2 = Hampshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Bucks
-
preparedsurrey
- Posts: 544
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:33 pm
- Location: Area 3
Re: Woodland hippies Commune
Not unless the prefabs had been insitu in the woods since the 60's, its still unauthorised development.I guess the temporary planning was for storage/ workshop/ office buildings not living accomodationnickdutch wrote: Maybe if they had 1960's prefabs things would have been different?
If guns are outlawed then only the outlaws will have guns....
-
yorkshirewolf
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:52 pm
Re: Woodland hippies Commune
I can see it from both points of view;
As much as i dislike local councils and their bureaucracy, i can understand them wanting to limit people living in what few woodlands we have left. they need to be preserved and looked after because it's not like they're easy to replace, you get a few people buying woodland, each of them cut down a few trees because 'it's only a few to make way for a nice organic home' then the woodlands get less and less. And a well established tree thats taken a hundred years to grow isn't easily replaceable.
I used to work for a tree surgeon, and the amount of people who buy woodland and haven't the faintest clue how to manage and maintain it is staggering. I've seen large trees have to be cut because they've had six inch nails whacked into them, treehouses built into them, soil and rubble piled up around the base, limbs cut 'because it was in the way' even a load of bmx jumps dug upto the trunk and board nailed in to support the mounds.
So in this way i can understand the councils going mad.
The other problem is that once planning is given, it's transferable, so the next person who buys the land can also develop it a bit, cut down a few trees, flatten out a bit more land, build a bigger home etc etc. before long, the woodland becomes a few trees around a house. This is why our woodland is getting smaller and smaller.
HOWEVER
I can also understand someone wanting to live a low impact, organic, carbon zero, simple life, and i think people should be free to do that.
But, it's just so rare that someone has the lifestyle, finances, restraint and knowledge to live that life as well as preserving, maintaining and enhancing the land they occupy.
I've seen communes before that have started out as maybe ten people, but within a few years it's grown to a level which is unsustainable for the land, and as much as people might have the best of intentions, that doesn't generally work out in the best interest of the natural environment.
Unfortunately, we live in a small country, with a small amount of woodland, and the idea that anyone these days can - in a group - 'live off the land' with no impact to the environment is fantasy.
Personally i'd rather protect the natural environment for everyone, for future generations, and put humans wants second.
As much as i dislike local councils and their bureaucracy, i can understand them wanting to limit people living in what few woodlands we have left. they need to be preserved and looked after because it's not like they're easy to replace, you get a few people buying woodland, each of them cut down a few trees because 'it's only a few to make way for a nice organic home' then the woodlands get less and less. And a well established tree thats taken a hundred years to grow isn't easily replaceable.
I used to work for a tree surgeon, and the amount of people who buy woodland and haven't the faintest clue how to manage and maintain it is staggering. I've seen large trees have to be cut because they've had six inch nails whacked into them, treehouses built into them, soil and rubble piled up around the base, limbs cut 'because it was in the way' even a load of bmx jumps dug upto the trunk and board nailed in to support the mounds.
So in this way i can understand the councils going mad.
The other problem is that once planning is given, it's transferable, so the next person who buys the land can also develop it a bit, cut down a few trees, flatten out a bit more land, build a bigger home etc etc. before long, the woodland becomes a few trees around a house. This is why our woodland is getting smaller and smaller.
HOWEVER
I can also understand someone wanting to live a low impact, organic, carbon zero, simple life, and i think people should be free to do that.
But, it's just so rare that someone has the lifestyle, finances, restraint and knowledge to live that life as well as preserving, maintaining and enhancing the land they occupy.
I've seen communes before that have started out as maybe ten people, but within a few years it's grown to a level which is unsustainable for the land, and as much as people might have the best of intentions, that doesn't generally work out in the best interest of the natural environment.
Unfortunately, we live in a small country, with a small amount of woodland, and the idea that anyone these days can - in a group - 'live off the land' with no impact to the environment is fantasy.
Personally i'd rather protect the natural environment for everyone, for future generations, and put humans wants second.
-
yorkshirewolf
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:52 pm
Re: Woodland hippies Commune
Just to add a little to this, the commune have 32 acres of woodland, which for a group of 22 people is not a lot at all, considering it's being used for growing food, as well as firewood, materials for housing etc, it's not sustainable or healthy for the woodland anyway.
For a group of people to live sensibly and sustainably with good woodland management, growing most of your own food, you'd need a couple of square miles, so closer to 1000 acres.
that would allow the woodland as well as the people in it to thrive, it'd also give better space and habitat to the local wildlife, which i believe is the park authorities main concern.
For a group of people to live sensibly and sustainably with good woodland management, growing most of your own food, you'd need a couple of square miles, so closer to 1000 acres.
that would allow the woodland as well as the people in it to thrive, it'd also give better space and habitat to the local wildlife, which i believe is the park authorities main concern.
Re: Woodland hippies Commune
I'm with the Sex Pistols, "never trust a hippy".
No like Yorkshirewolf I can see both sides and I agree that it doesn't sound like a lot of land to make it work for that many people but I like the idea of it. Its probably a bit of a fantasy for quite a few of us on here, personally as long as I can get decent broadband and supermarket deliveries (and travelling distance to the football) I'd be all over that sh1t but I have an unreasonable wife who wants to live in a proper house and stuff. Tssk.
No like Yorkshirewolf I can see both sides and I agree that it doesn't sound like a lot of land to make it work for that many people but I like the idea of it. Its probably a bit of a fantasy for quite a few of us on here, personally as long as I can get decent broadband and supermarket deliveries (and travelling distance to the football) I'd be all over that sh1t but I have an unreasonable wife who wants to live in a proper house and stuff. Tssk.