Acoustic cloaking? Sonic crystals? Have I unwittingly staggered across some new age musical therapy? The kind that involves mantras and chakras, auras and a heavy dose of unreserved middle class self-indulgence?

Actually no, these techie terms bear no reference to spiritually inspired incantations per se, but they could one day protect your home – and your eardrums – from the impact of thumping baselines, jangling guitars, and any other outside aural annoyances …drills, 747s, rumbling trucks, mating foxes masquerading as bawling babies (believe me, it happens)…

So how’s that then?

The term “acoustic cloaking” is the action of diverting sound waves around an object. The sonic crystals are a man-made material that will do said cloaking, and Dr Torrent and Dr Sanchez-Dehesa are the two Spanish boffins who have figured out just how to make it all work.

Following some “very encouraging” tests it would appear that all you need is 200 or so layers of the stuff and waves of sound will part around you like the Red Sea did for Moses.

Obviously, it’s not all that straightforward and there’s a long way to go before these sonic crystals are tested, re-tested, patented and packaged into a mass-market goldmine, but the potential for such sound-proofing material is enormous.

I’m thinking, never again will drum n bass invade my peaceful domain at 3am from the converted flat above.

The military, however, are thinking more along the lines of stealth warships than noisy neighbours. Go figure.

“If we find out that our neighbours, or households similar to ours, are using half as much energy as we are, then we’re much more likely to bring our own consumption down in line.

“So I can announce today that a Conservative Government will make sure every gas and electricity bill contains information that allows each household to compare their energy consumption with other households.”

David Cameron, in a speech yesterday to mark the launch of the Tories Blue/Green Charter, thinks neighbourly pressure is the way to encourage energy efficiency.

Not so sure I agree, Dave.

Energy consumption is, one would imagine, related to how energy efficient the house is.

If the Joneses earn more than the Smiths and can retrofit their Victorian semi with snazzy solar panels, mohair insulation, triple-glazing, and all manner of energy-saving gizmos, does that make them eco saints? Or just better consumers of green technology?

What About EPCs?

And where does this leave Energy Performance Certificates? EPCs, a mandatory requirement for all property sales, provide people with lots of information about their homes.

But EPCs also fail to deliver because most people don’t act on the information – well, would you, if it meant frittering savings on a house you were about to sell? Money you’re unlikely to recoup in the sale?

Encouraging consumers to do their eco bit is all well and good, but I can’t help feeling that you’ll only get people to make their homes more energy efficient if you combine the big sustainably-sourced stick with the juicy chemical-free carrot.

And that means mandatory regulations, such as EPCs, and economic incentives … such as grants, stamp duty rebates, a reduction in VAT on the implementation of energy efficiency measures …

The Cameroonians have no plans to scrap EPCs – but if they want to make them work, it will take more than information about our neighbours’ gas bills.

What say ye? Let me know…

“I have met quite a few architects around the world over the years, and few appear to be dog lovers … Perhaps it’s because dogs are messy and chaotic creatures, while architects are generally tidy and ordered?

“Le Corbusier had a dog during his purist phase. It was called Pinceau, or “paintbrush” in English.

“When Pinceau died, Corbu had the creature skinned, using its pelt to cover his favourite copy of Don Quixote….”

The excellent Jonathan Glancey over at BD: The Architects’ Website reveals that Le Corbusier was, err, barking, and wonders whether modernism’s inability to live with man’s best friend is “a measure of its joylessness”.

But the two don’t have to be at odds. If you’re determined that your dog doesn’t clash with your clean-lined decor, we think Wowbow’s designs (pic above) may be preferable to more drastic measures (like taxidermy … or buying a cat).

Depending on how eco-friendly you really are, the following information could have you nodding your head in resigned agreement or furiously head-butting your swanky new flat screen.

It appears that the self-proclaimed Protectors of the Great British Bin Collection (The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail) have caught a glimpse of a top-secret report by DEFRA that threatens to charge us more (!) for collecting less rubbish, less often, and if we live in a new home – possibly not at all.

Naturally, The Mail and The Telegraph see this as an outrage, unthinkable, and surely political suicide for any party wishing to avoid being consigned to the dustbin of history themselves etc etc. And yet, unnaturally, I find myself in surprised agreement with my right-honourable newspaper pals.

So let’s look at the nitty-gritty of this, shall we?

While the enticingly titled report “Household Waste Prevention Policy” may be a hefty tome, weighing in at 412 pages, details are rather sketchy, and certainly nothing is set in stone – or some other biodegradable composite – at this stage.

Nevertheless, it’s hard to look forward to the prospect of less frequent bin collections, even if this is “the most direct way to compel householders to reduce their waste”.

Having lived in the seagull infested city that is Brighton for many waste-filled years, I can tell you how much we all look forward to the one day of the week when we can free our streets of bird-scavenged bins and generally enjoy a clear pavement for a couple hours.

Would less frequent collections really translate to less rubbish? I slyly suspect, and this is harking back to hazy memories of my student days, that rather than throwing out less rubbish we would just end up becoming engulfed by it (or is that just me?).

More alarming than fewer collections is the grim possibility of a £466 annual bin charge – apparently council tax doesn’t necessarily cover the regular emptying of your household rubbish.

But of all recommendations, it’s new home buyers that might be left with the biggest bin gag, by having a capped amount that would limit how much they can throw away.

It just all sounds too mad to be true. Which sadly means that it probably is.

Internationally famous tycoon Donald Trump and his equally famous side-parting descended upon Scotland this week for an inquiry into his plans to build the ‘world’s greatest golf course’ north of Aberdeen.

Of course, Scotland is widely regarded as being the home of golf but it turns out it’s also the ancestral home of Mr Trump, his mother having been born on the Isle of Lewis.

So maybe that’s the motivation for his proposals to open a £1-billion complex in the north east of Scotland, which, let’s face it, is a wee bit less glamorous and a whole lot colder than the locations of his other upmarket courses which include Los Angeles, Florida and The Grenadines.

But even a super-wealthy tycoon with scarily coiffured locks and a bona fide Scottish connection doesn’t automatically get his own way. Thank goodness.

Because it turns out that the proposed setting for Trump’s Caledonian scheme is slap bang in the middle of a Site of Special Scientific Interest, namely the wildly dramatic Balmedie Dunes.

And, naturally, it’s not just a low level golf course that would be being constructed on top of them.

Oh no, in true American ‘the bigger the better’ fashion, the billionaire intends to create a luxury hotel, over a thousand holiday homes and apartments, and – just because – a second golf course.

Admittedly, the project is likely to boost the area’s tourism which is not to be sniffed at; but at what cost to the surrounding environment? I suspect if Mother Trump were still here today, she’d be talking a bit of Scottish sense into her son.

Not content with heating Buckingham Palace with Geothermal energy Mrs Windsor has bought oneself a jolly big windmill, aka a 7.5 Megawatt Wind Turbine.

And not one to do things by halves she’s bought THE BIGGEST WIND TURBINE IN THE WORLD! Go Liz, go!

Appropriately enough, it’s called ‘Britannia’ and will be situated in the sea off Britain somewhere, so once again (drumroll please) Britannia will rule the waves!

The cynical amongst us may see this as just a further example of the Crown’s canny investment in future power.

Because you can’t just wake up one morning and plonk your own windfarm offshore. Oh no! You gots to talk to da Queen first.

All the offshore windfarms in the UK are there by grace of HRH, via the Crown Estate. From the Crown Estate Website:

“The Energy Act 2004 created a ‘Renewable Energy Zone’ (REZ) on the UK continental shelf out to 200nm and rights to licence the generation of renewable energy in the REZ were vested in The Crown Estate.” (My italics).

I’m guessing those licenses don’t come cheap. It’s good to be the Queen!

Not content with inspiring Woody Allen’s best film while still in my mother’s womb, it has recently been brought to my attention that there now exists a remarkable shopping trolley chair bearing my name.

The Annie Chair, as can be seen below, takes the unlikely combo of utilitarianism and kitsch to absurdly delightful new heights with its terrific reclining posture and funky floral prints.

The only thing that’s missing is the original madcap wheels, which spoils half the fun if you ask me – but obviously nobody did.

Oh, and before you join the checkout queue over at reestore bear in mind the £650 price tag – not for the faint-hearted or Asda shopper.

In fact, it’s almost enough to make you want to buy your own blowtorch and go foraging in your local canal. Almost.

Some of our readers have scoffed at a story we published on Wednesday: House Prices Rose In April.

They think we’re trying to talk up the market, distort the truth and deny the reality of what’s currently happening to house prices.

Gareth Evans writes: “Amazing that you are still trying to hoodwink the populace and attempt to stimulate demand in a recessive market by statistical manipulation.”

What can I say other than yes, Gareth, guilty as charged …

Picture this. We’re sitting in our bunker with our tin hats on. Outside it’s bleak.

House prices are tumbling, builders are in trouble, inflation is rising, and Gordon Brown is trying to ‘connect’ by smiling a lot.

But it’s our job to make things sound sunny.  And we’ve been failing miserably of late – just look at our recent run of headlines:

• Prices Down -0.7 Per Cent In May (09-Jun-2008)

• Even Prime London Is Feeling The Heat (05-Jun-2008)

• House Prices Drop -2.4 Per Cent In May (05-Jun-2008)

This is not very ‘on message’, to say the least.  So on Tuesday 10th June, I stood on a wooden ammunition box and delivered an impassioned rant to the shivering troops.

“Enough already with this reporting of stuff! We’re here to shape reality not reflect it! Bring me a story that will turn the tide, solve the credit crunch and have buyers flocking back to the market!”

And so it came to pass that on Wednesday one of our newshounds (Annie) brought me a story revealing a house price rise in April. That’s right … a house price rise!

Oh, how we rejoiced! Champagne corks flew through the air and we performed a jig of joy that would have put Riverdance to shame …

But it didn’t work: I came in on Thursday 12th to be greeted by your feedback … and by this:

• So…errmmm…what planet are you guys living on?

• Talk about manipulating figures!!! Price rise my Ar**!

We had a cunning plan to sugar the pill with crafty caveats like:  “The general trend is downwards and the pace accelerated in the three months to April with price falls of -1 per cent.”

We even managed to sound a lot like the independent property blog The Rat and Mouse, which on the same day published: Market report – rare sight… a rise.

But (curses!) there’s just no fooling some people.

Willem Dafoe’s rubber pad is up for sale according to the celeb real-estate website The Real Estalker and rather nice it is too. If rubber is your thing that is.

It’s only rubber clad, so it’s not strictly a rubber house … that’d be silly. It’d wobble around far too much and smell like an inner tube. Not that I sniff many inner tubes… Ummm.

At the risk of this post rapidly turning into an admission of gimp tendencies, let’s move quickly along.

If $850K for Mr Dafoe’s rubber retreat is a little steep for your wallet, then you can indulge your architectural rubber fetish closer to home.

Whilst not for sale, ‘Vista’ (aka ‘The Rubber House’) is similarly rubber-clad. OK, technically its neoprene, not rubber, but let’s not get bogged down in details.

Award-winning and completed in 2004 by Simon Conder Associates it’s less a house, more an art-project and – looking like a scene from a David Lynch film – it sits well in the weird, post apocalyptic landscape of Dungeness.

To make things even weirder it’s accompanied in the shingle wasteland by that sleek classic of caravans, the Airstream, which any moment you feel could pop open to reveal Dennis Hopper, beckoning whilst inhaling from a canister of gas.

I do like it, but at the same time {shudder} it’s a bit scary. I’ll stick to brick.

How would you feel about renting a flat from Google or Apple?

That may be on the cards if the property industry succeeds in convincing the Government to back the introduction of build-to-let schemes in the UK.

Build-to-let encourages big business to buy whole blocks and rent them out as branded accommodation.

So instead of paying your rent to Bob the part-time buy-to-let landlord, you’ll hand over your hard-earned coin to “Google or Virgin style brands”.

The advocates – including what one commentator has called “an unlikely and unholy alliance” of Shelter and The British Property Federation – argue that tenants will be the real winners (there’s a discussion of the subject here: Today Programme – Feb 08).

The quality of the property, they say, will be more predictable; you won’t get slung out onto the street if your landlord can’t pay the mortgage; leases will be longer than six months; and your leaky tap will get fixed pronto … though it might also mean this…

I can see the sense in that – pretty much everyone who’s searched for a good rental property has a horror story about some sweaty bloke in a string vest showing them round a rancid basement with chanterelles sprouting from the lino.

But on the other side of the coin, I’m not so sure I’d want to live in a branded block populated exclusively by tenants.

I currently rent a period conversion in an area with an interesting mix of people – some renting, some owner-occupiers – and my landlord is a decent bloke who sorts out problems quickly and leaves me pretty much to get on with it.

True, the sash windows rattle, the boiler, for some mad reason, is in the wardrobe, and the washing machine sounds like a 747.

But would I swap it for a flat in a branded building? I don’t think so (there are enough Apple zealots here at FAP Towers … not sure I could handle a building full of them!)

The Government isn’t convinced either, but they’re currently considering it as part of a major review of the Private Rental Sector (due in October).

It will be interesting to see what they come up with … but in the meantime:

Landlords and tenants: what do you think about build-to-let, and how could the rental sector be improved? (Comment link below).