Just had a reply to an email I sent to my MP (wow!)

Dear Rachel,
Thank you for your recent email about the forestry debate. I appreciate you taking the trouble to contact me and I certainly understand your concern over this matter.
At the conclusion of the debate I voted in favour of a consultation which seeks views on how to offer better protection for our woodlands and forests. The motion which I supported is set out below:
“This House deplores the actions of the previous administration in selling off 25,000 acres of public forestry estate with wholly inadequate protections; notes that the previous administration sought to go even further in finding ways to exploit the forestry estate for commercial gain as recently as 2009; welcomes the consultation proposals to guarantee the future protection of heritage forests by offering them charitable trust status; supports the consultation proposals for robust access and public benefit conditions that will be put in place through lease conditions, including access right for cyclists and horse-riders; believes the leasehold conditions regarding biodiversity and wildlife conservations will safeguard significant important environmental benefits; sees these proposals as important in resolving the conflict of interest whereby the Forestry Commission is the regulator of the timber sector whilst being the largest operator in the England timber market; considers that debate on the future of the forest estate ought to be conducted on the basis of the facts of the Governments proposals and believes that under these proposals people will continue to enjoy the access and benefits they currently have from the woodlands of England.”
I voted against a Labour motion which was factually incorrect – as we have no plans to sell all the forestry estate – and frankly hypocritical given the 25,000 acres sold by them with virtually no protection for access rights and given their own plans just before the election to go down a similar route with forestry.
I hope this offers reassurance as to our unflinching commitment to safeguarding access rights, environmental protections and public benefits. It is regrettable that Labour have, for political reasons, distorted this important discussion about how we can get better protection for our forests, get people more directly involved in how they are run and get our commercial timber industry on a more sound economic footing.
I share with you a strong interest in the protection of woodland so I would urge you to respond to the consultation, which can be found at:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfeconsultation
The consultation document sets out various methods that might be used to secure important public benefits that forests provide, and the future direction that DEFRA expect the Forestry Commission to take.
Alternatively I would be happy to send your comments to DEFRA on your behalf if you wish me to do so.
Every best wish,
Henry Bellingham MP

Actually, I must admit I learned a few things there and it appears the debate is complicated. I’m sure the current status quo is most preferable for cyclists but there does appear to be at least the opportunity for some reasonable protection in the future…

Rachel

My MP can’t be bothered to reply to me beyond saying ‘crikey I’m busy’.

He did vote against the Labour amendment though which is a good indication that he’s just Tory lobby fodder.

Thanks, Mike Weatherley MP 🙁

If you look on the 38 degrees ‘replies’ page that’s pretty much a standard answer.

whilst it is true much of what the reply states is true, it fails to resolve a number of points. The woodland already sold is a done deal, but the tories were selling it last time they were in too so shouldn’t be let off lightly. Future maintenance of access for who? walkers. cyclists, horseriders, will access be free to roam or restricted to paths. What about parking and other facilities, I don’t care about cafes or trail centres, but somewhere to park the car is helpful. There are on record cases where gates have been erected and car parks closed, thus dissuading use, but not actually stopping it.

One thing that crosses my mind who would the charitable bodies be, and for whose benefit would they work, there is a distinctly Nimby nature about alot of organisations. Woodland in the UK is the result of management, coppicing, charcoal burning, sheep grazing, etc.

And finally money, woodland is tax efficient as a investment and there are a number of grants available. Will the sale actually raise money on day one and if so after how long will the tax and grants take to nullify any gains made.

As for consultation, read it completed it, but it is not a discussion on whether the sale is the right thing, it is a discussion on how to make the sale palatable. Would you like me to cut your right or left leg off.

Rachel,

You must be fairly local to me then. Although I fall in to the West Norfolk Constiuency. Good to know that some MP’s wil take the time to reply. I have had no answer from mine.

On another note where do you ride around your bit of Norfolk? Any good trail suggestions appreciated.

Tom

Maybe point out that legal rights or not cyclists right to roam in FC forests seems to be toleated to the extent of building cheeky trails as long as there are no drops/jumps/ladders.

Is that ‘right’ going to be protected?

Also, has anyone considdered that the FC doesnt own a lot of woods that have FC signs on them? Robins Wood near Derby is owned by the parrish council and leased to the FC. As a result (bizzarely) local people have no right of access to it beyond rights of way becasue the PC doesn’t want any liability despite the PC supposedly being the forum for local people!

Give me FC or Crown Estate owned woods any day.

Pretty much exactly what I got back from mine…

Thank you for getting in touch with me about forestry. I share your concerns that public access, leisure activities, conservation and biodiversity should be protected and promoted. The Labour government???s scheme, under which 20,000 acres of public forest were sold, did not have adequate safeguards for these important concerns and led to a loss of access in some forests. I did not vote in support of the Coalition Government???s proposals in the recent debate because I wanted greater assurance that the safeguards now proposed will be effectively enforceable and will apply to land sales already planned. (In future the Government intends to sell only leases, not the freehold of the land, which makes enforcement of access conditions easier and more certain.) I will be watching the legislation carefully when it comes before the Commons to see that these issues are effectively dealt with.

Most of the forest areas in my constituency have always been privately owned and managed, but in Northumberland as a whole there is a very large Forestry Commission estate. The forests, both public and private, provide jobs in the timber trade and popular access for leisure which also helps to support the tourist industry. In some parts of the country, such as the New Forest, most of the forest area is ancient woodland which could be at least as well ??? or better ??? protected if it was in the ownership of charitable or community trusts. There are smaller areas in Northumberland to which this might apply. I do not see any compelling reason why, so long as access and diversity are protected, commercial forest areas have to be kept in the ownership of a loss-making nationalised industry which was created to meet very different circumstances at the end of the First World War. In Northumberland, the Commission???s decision to plant large areas of our hills with regimented conifer plantations was originally very controversial. In recent years the Commission has done more to promote the planting of broadleaved native species.

The Forestry Commission now has a vital regulatory role, and I want to see its expertise retained for the benefit of the whole of the forestry industry and the public who value it highly.

The Government???s proposals are the subject of a consultation, and I hope that when you have had a chance to study them in more detail you will respond to the consultation at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate.consult/index.htm.

With thanks for letting me know your views.

20,000 acres compared with up to 640,000 acres ie all of the forests

The FC have always sold bits of woodland and bought bits of woodland. the difference here is the scale of it.

If my local woods are sold, they’d fetch between £12million and £30million. Local interest groups have the right to try to buy them; and will have a whole 28 days to raise the cash.

I did get a response to my amazement which just said look at the consultation and deal with any queries through that. I am now going through the consultation and will respond, but as above the answers are “guided” inasmuch as it just deals with the mechanics of how it would be done, not the base issue of whether it should be done.

Once completed, I will then respond to my MP and ask questions like:

– The proposal assumes that “friendly” charities etc will want to take on leases. What if they don’t / can’t afford etc? What if they largely only get big commercial entreprises who openly admit that they are not interested in Joe Public?

– How will “higher” access rights (eg bikes, horses) be protected, as they are not under CROW? etc etc

I did read the Hansard of the debate, and to be fair cyclists were mentioned several times. But would I trust a party that is currently being praised for its (unrelated) policies by the National Front in France? Not a chance!

I’ve had a fair amount of discussion with my MP on this and she voted against.

I wrote to my MP a few days before the motion was tabled. I’ve yet to receive a reply. Jeremy Wright MP, tut tut tut.

It simply shows how slim their case is. The reply you got is the same as the reply I got. Basically telling you that they are going to sell off the whole forest estate to protect poor little me from those nasty Labour people.

Its really simple. The FC control between 15 and 18% of the entire forest estate in the UK. i.e. 82 – 85% is already in private hands. Easily verifiable figures, so don’t just believe me, check it.

Once you’re happy take yourself off in a corner and write two lists, one of all the FC controlled forests that encourage cycling, and the other all the private ones that do the same.

Simple really: My private list extended to Llandegla, my FC one had 20 or 30 names on it.

Think about it FFS!

I got a lengthly letter from the Rt Hon Owen Patterson, different from the ones above and I can’t be arsed typing it all in, however, he supports the sale, says rights of way and access will be unaffected (hasn’t responded to my question about retaining the FC tolerance for cyclists on forest roads though). He does indicate that once the proposals have been published they will explore further options for securign and increasing the wide range of public benefits currently delivered by Gov’t ownership (and how they might be achieved at a lower cost).

He did include a copy of a letter from Matt Ridley to the Times, dated 24/1/2011. Again I can’t be arsed re-typing it but he fervently supports the sale and completely slates the FC (an anachronism), if you pay to access the Times on-line then maybe you can find it. Bit too agressively pro sale/kill the FC for me to be convinced by his arguments, feels like there is an agenda hidden somewhere.

my heavily paraphrased from memory response was “meh. you prob dont fully understand the proposal. Please read it. I am not going to directly answer your questions and you letter has had no impact upon my opions. Have a nice day.”
oh well, at least he responded.

I’ve not really been paying attention to any of this, due to not really being affected. I have a question though – is there any likelihood of a set of access rights being put into law, comparable to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003? Would this work in principle, or is everyone of the opinion that as soon as the forests are sold they’ll be flattened and the land turned into supermarkets and overpriced flats?

Dear rachel,

I AM A ROBOT.

Here’s is what I have been programmed to say,

blah,blah and blah.

Name one political party that after loosing power hasn’t been shown to be thieving, lying, incompetent scum?

Didn’t really want to get involved in a debate on here, but the Public Bodies Bill is the real problem in my opinion. The MP’s own briefing note on this subject is interesting, see section 5.1 http://tinyurl.com/3yu7m88.

Maybe they won’t sell the forests yet, but they’re passing a law that will allow them or any future government to sell the whole estate without going to parliament again. This consultation is too late as the Public Bodies bill is already going through parliament. Do you trust them?

@the flying ox, i don’t see i cat in hells chance of any land reform act in england. The sell off of forestry will not lead to new building what it will lead to is rich bankers buying up land so they can play the part of landed gentry, maybe a little deer hunting, release some wild boar, something a little different for corporate entertainment. I am sure they could get a few prisoners and do some man hunting. All the while they will be claiming tax and grants.

Very true kaesae but the bunch before are always worse.

Just thinking, and I am certainly NOT in favour of this sell-off, but if it does come to pass I wonder how many of us you’d need to get together to lease a bit of forest big enough to create a decent xc (or whatever) course? Probably not a good time to suggest it (see my note above on what happens if no friendy lease-holders can afford to come forward) but just having happy thoughts on creating courses around the country.

Actually, judging by the inability of anyone on here agreeing even on things like speaker wire, just imagine trying to get agreement on managing the thing!

@tommid (yeah I know this isn’t Twitter!) – I tend to either pop down to adherents or ride from KL up the coast (not even a footpath but never had issues) and around through Snettisham etc and back through Sandringham estate.

Either that or pop up to the Peak…

You??

Rachel

We hear it again, and again, and again! “loss of public access”.

I say ‘get your wellies on’ and go and access a forest near you. Not via some signposted, nicey- nice managed woodland walk, nor forest road built with quarried stone. Instead enter the real body of a typical forest of un-thinned Sitka. You will of course have to get down on your hands and knees not forgetting to first don some method of head and eye protection before crawling in. Therein as you crawl observe biodiversity on forest floor (a totally sterile environment) also ponder access issue and your right to roam.

Seriously!

Thereafter visit an area of clear fell, clamber in over upturned roots, branches, deep machinery ruts and ditches. Therein observe ground zero and once again ponder ‘care of the countryside’ and ‘your right to roam’. This is not a rhetorical point, forget the visitor centres or mountain bike tracks, no one should be allowed to comment on access or biodiversity without first crawling through part of the 70% or so Sitka area that makes up the real forests of.

I trained at Kielder working for the Forestry Commission, did a huge amount of work with the FC while involved with IMBA, and much as I love them, the FC are far, far from being forward thinkers on Forest management, Much as work has been done to improve things, the continued use of large coupe even age rotation forestry is far, far from ideal, with a lack of people who understand things like continuous cover forestry (CTF), CTNF, selective harvesting systems instead of 20ha clearfells – this is the stuff the FC should have been working toward for twenty years, yet only a tiny percentage of their landholding has been earmarked for CCF, and I really, really don’t blame the “tree men” for it – private landowners make a profit from their forestry, other countries make a profit from their public forestry, why the bloody hell can’t the FC?

Finally, and most importantly, the purpose of the Forestry Commission is to grow a reserve of timber, with the best possible balance for wildlife and conservation – it is not, and should never be, to run municipal parks – the side benefits for local communities of recreational tourism are great, and its really important that we have nice places to ride our bikes, but not at the expense of the wildlife that lives in the forests, and I maintain to this day that open access and conservation are mutually exclusive, the current debate over the sale of FC land is placing recreation far, far too high up the ladder – I think the trees, and the wildlife, come first!

enter the real body of a typical forest of un-thinned Sitka. You will of course have to get down on your hands and knees not forgetting to first don some method of head and eye protection before crawling in

Yep did that two weeks ago scoping out new FC supported trails at Gisburn. I’ll turn your point on it’s head, if the FC was providing the signposted trails then in reality access to these areas is almost impossible on foot yet alone on a bike. The FC does provide corridors through these areas for both us and the wildlife, can’t so many private landowners making the effort.

open access and conservation are mutually exclusive

I think the National Trust may beg to differ in most cases.

the current debate over the sale of FC land is placing recreation far, far too high up the ladder

In your opinion, given the fact it’s likely to cost to lease off the forests why not maintain the access and save some cash. Here’s an even more radical idea why not improve the way the FC operates, the government is ultimately responsible for it and extend the leisure remit. Times and societies needs change, why not up the focus on leisure, might even turn that paltry £ 10 million annual susidy into a small profit which could be ploughed back into bio-diversity projects or even greater managed access.

Stumpyjon – I thoroughly agree, Improve the FC (my problem is, that we’ve heard that for years, and its only got worse) – however the public debate at the moment is not “keep the FC, but do it better” its “maintain the status quo, the FC is perfect as it is” – its not, and I don’t like the public uproar that seems to concentrate only on *public access* rather than “whats best for the forests”

At the same time – if the issue *is* access, then it doesn’t matter who owns it, as long as access rights are protected, which could be easily done in law.

Dont know if anyone else got this popup but heres teh obvious answer to disposing of all teh forests:

http://www.treeclear.co.uk/html/forestry_mulcher.html

enjoy, big machines eating up trees 🙂 🙂

might result in soem novel MTB trails too 🙂