Sale of Forestry Commision Land

[Guinnessman1974]

What concerns do people have with the proposed sale of up to 50% of publicly owned forest, there has been a lot of outcry over the subject, however....

The Woodland Trust's statement on the subject:

"With a public consultation on the long term land ownership model for the public forest estate look set for January 2011, at the Woodland Trust we have long held the view that not all of the existing Public Forest Estate needs to be kept in public ownership. This is especially true for those sites whose primary purpose is the production of timber, or where local community ownership is a viable option.

However, the Trust does have concerns about the consequences of a substantially accelerated disposal programme of public forest land for those sites which deliver significant public benefit. Ancient woodland is the UK's richest and most fragile habitat; our equivalent to the rainforest. However, around 40 per cent of all ancient woods have been degraded by the planting of non-native conifers. Restoring the Commission's 20,000 ha of planted ancient woodland sites offers a major opportunity for improving the UK's biodiversity and displaying world leadership ahead of the International Year of Forests. If the government is determined to be the greenest ever, then it needs to find a mechanism to secure the future of ancient woodland sites planted with conifers over the last 60-70 years.

More immediately the Forestry Commission as a result of the CSR 2010 settlement has to sell 40,000 hectares of land in the next four years; many of the sites already on the market are planted ancient woods and we have written to Jim Paice as Forestry Minister to urge him to defer such sales until the conclusions from the public consultation are reached; only then should the Commission contemplate selling such sites and to responsible owners.

The Trust also has concerns that not all public forest land has yet been dedicated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for permanent public access; this applies to sites where the Forestry Commission holds the leasehold rather than the freehold. Public access needs to be safeguarded prior to land disposals taking place. Moreover, it is noteworthy that at the last general election all three of the main political parties' manifestos contained commitments to increasing tree and woodland cover. For this to be delivered on the ground the Government needs to protect and increase Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) funding for tree planting. In practice this should mean earmarking revenue raised from land sales for this purpose."

There is due a public consultation in the new year, so what are other's concerns?

[Fuzzy-felt bloke]

Done to death, and with thread locked.

Our forests may be sold off

Fuzzy-Felt Bloke

[SheffieldLass]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy-felt bloke

Done to death, and with thread locked.

Our forests may be sold off

Fuzzy-Felt Bloke

There's still much to be debated that wasn't addressed in that thread, but unfortunately that thread kept getting badly sidetracked so was closed.

[RKB]

I think it was pretty much covered. Although I don't see why it was locked. It's a strange quirk of WAB that you are not allowed to discuss politics on a thread about a political decision of nationalisation vs privatisation.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by RKB

I think it was pretty much covered. Although I don't see why it was locked. It's a strange quirk of WAB that you are not allowed to discuss politics on a thread about a political decision of nationalisation vs privatisation.

lets not get into why a thread was locked - that itself is against the rules , as is the discussion of party politics - the reason why ought to be obvious - because it causes discord and personal argument

Its fine to discuss the ramifications of government decisions such as the forestry sell off, HWD, cuts to conservation bodies etc - but lets avoid discussing whether other parties would have done it better, and which party's policies led us to this situation

There are loads of sites on the web where one can argue the 3 day week vs the miners strike etc ad naseum if one really must - but Wab isnt one of them.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by RKB

Although I don't see why it was locked.

Really? Take a look at the last exchange between you and Jim Ford before that thread was closed - pure politics and nothing whatsoever to do with the sale of Forrestry Commission land.

For the moment I'm happy to let this thread stay so that people can try again to discuss the pros and cons of the proposed sale but if it goes the same way as the last thread then it will get closed again. And if it's the same people breaking the same rules then the ban stick will come out!

Dave P.

[Bobbobthebob]

Okay, I'll bite.

My concern is that the assurances we've heard that access rights won't be signed away and that development won't take place on these green spaces, don't make any sense in the face of selling this land to private entities. After all what is the incentive for a private business to buy the land if they can do nothing with it to generate a profit?

We're told that entities like the woodland trust, the RSPB and mysterious local environmentally-minded individual benefactors will buy a lot of this land and little will have changed for the average person. But it still means that land that belongs to all of us has been held up to ransom and that the members of the public most concerned by this (ie donors to those trusts) have had to pay up to save a resource for everyone. That same money could have gone on other projects such as habitat improvement on land already owned, but instead the ugly image of other habitat being lost forever will force the hand of these charities into buying as much as they can, potentially to the detriment of all else.

It just seems absurd that such low cost public amenities, that have great but unfortunately intangible benefits for the public, will be sold off permanently for little profit in order to pay off a tiny part of a debt created by a corrupt banking system.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Bobbobthebob

Okay, I'll bite.

My concern is that the assurances we've heard that access rights won't be signed away and that development won't take place on these green spaces, don't make any sense in the face of selling this land to private entities. After all what is the incentive for a private business to buy the land if they can do nothing with it to generate a profit?

.

over 95% of the access network is already in private hands tho (including many woodland enivironments and they function pretty well) - also the plan is that 1/3 of the total asset is to be disposed of (so 2/3 will remain in public ownership) and of that 1/3 , about 2/3s so 2/9s of the total will be given or sold at a peppercorn to community groups and trusts.

so only 1/9 of the aset will actually be sold into single or corporate private ownership - which is less than was disposed of without problems i the last forestry commision draw down.

I also think the woodland trust are beeing somewhat disingenuos in critising the government disposal whilst also quietly transfering over a 3rd of their own holding into private or community hands on 999 year leases.

[Cowgirl]

Admittedly I know nothing & this is probably a naive question, but is it possible put a proviso on a sale so that woodland sold can only stay as woodland, sort of like selling a house with an agricultural tie?

Presumably only companies who wish to invest in the timber/leisure industry will wish to buy them then.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Cowgirl

Admittedly I know nothing & this is probably a naive question, but is it possible put a proviso on a sale so that woodland sold can only stay as woodland, sort of like selling a house with an agricultural tie?

Presumably only companies who wish to invest in the timber/leisure industry will wish to buy them then.

Yes, this is exactly what exists, twice over in fact. If Joe Bloggs buys a wood, any wood, and he wants to chnage the use from 'woodland' to 'house' or 'factory' or 'field', it will require a change of use permission from the planning committee of the local authority. Just the same as if you want to build a house on a field, or turn a field into a wood (over a certain size). Also, as it is an ex-Forestry Commission wood, they retain a veto over whether you can fell any trees. You would have to get a FC permit before you could cut down anything.

One of the main reasons people buy woods is not for investment as timber or leisure areas, but as an investment in the capital appreciation of the wood itself. have a read of this: Woodland Investement