It’s probably up here already, but it’s worth keeping it in people’s minds.

If enough of us take the time to answer their consultation, it still won’t necessarily stop the forests being sold, but it might help get a regulatory regime in place charged with ensuring full open access for the public.

It didn’t take long and it does open your eyes to exactly what is being talked about.

Forestry Commission consultation

Will look into this over the weekend. Thanks for the heads up…

I’ve had a look through it. I have to say that it is definitely worth responding to, but the opportunity for responding is severely limited as the format and scope of the consultation is very poor. Several sections are sloppily worded and, as with many public consultations, they effectively screen out possibilites for entering into discussion except on their own terms. That’s my opinion at a first glance anyway.

having filled it in, you can see the core theme is, we are selling the woods now what should we do to make it more palatable?

double posting

how do you find out which woods are for sale and how to buy them or the rights for leisure use?

on South Today’s package about this last night it was clear that is was both land and rights that were for sale – but no clue as to where to look.

Now I’ve asked that I better have a look at the FC website but googling it does not help.

The most important section seems to be P18- “All these community and charity ideas sound fantastic, let’s do all of that and more without giving up profitable land to private business and then funding them with public money. Instead, let’s keep our land and our profit.

Yours sincerely, the internet”

PS, thanks for the link, well worth completing IMO.

Bump – keep on responding please people

By the way in every freeform box I suggested public ownership was preferable and heavy regulation to ensure full open public access was a must.

Sunday night primetime bump – I hope all you guys are responding to the consultation not just whinging on the other threads on here.

Responded in detail, key decision already taken of course, only issue is how much goes and how badly public gets done over.

Made similar points to IGM, also suggested setting up a quasi-corporate vehicle like railtrack to take the FC off the governments books as another option but suspect the reality is going to look like:

1) Sell land to forestry company/national trust/local nimby’s/van hoogstraten’s

2) New owners rigourously apply access rights thus banning anyone who as a result of our archaic access laws is there on FC sufferance

3) “Get orf my land”

Done, but I’m even more worried now there is some weird agenda behind all this.

Responded, and then got side tracked off into this report on FC website:

“Lifestyle, identity and young people’s experiences of mountain biking”

Which concludes that
“The research shows that certain countryside spaces, especially woodlands are important for youth leisure. They afford a space away from the gaze of adults and from the conflicts associated with other (urban) leisure space, and provide opportunities to feel ownership. Bedgebury Forest offered a range of ‘ready made’ mountain biking spaces for both beginner and more experienced youth mountain bikers that participants could access without fear of reprimand. This was in sharp contrast to their experiences of other privately owned spaces.”

Whodathunkit?

Link

Filled it out at the weekend. I’ve written to my MP too stating my opposition and the hope that they’ll vote against privatisation of the forests, but if the worst should happen that they should ensure that current permissive routes are maintained and businesses (such as local cycle hire shops, skills courses, cafes and horse riding schools) aren’t forced out.

From the survey’s questions, it does seem like they’ve already made the decision though, doesn’t it?