Forestry Comission may sell of up to 1.85M acres
Discussion
Pothole said:
'MAY'
Still at consultation stage. Massive media sensationalisation.
Um.. no...Still at consultation stage. Massive media sensationalisation.
The decision has been made. It IS being sold. It is the HOW that is undecided
http://www.woodlands.co.uk/blog/woodland-activitie...
Pothole said:
As I said - the decision has been made to sell, it is HOW and who to is being decided."We are in week two of a 12 week consultation process"
With the way the last lot sold off forests, without telling anyone and without any safe guards on continued public access, I can understand why some people are concerned.
I cannot see the same secret deals/fecklessness being applied if this does go through.
With the way the last lot sold off forests, without telling anyone and without any safe guards on continued public access, I can understand why some people are concerned.
I cannot see the same secret deals/fecklessness being applied if this does go through.
Edited by Raven Flyer on Wednesday 9th February 16:27
Government's figures are here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/li...
258,000 hectares was valued last year at £700 million = £2,700 per hectare. (1 hectare = 2.47 acres)
Annual maintenance costs on this were £15 million = £58 per hecatare/year.
N.B. They generated £61m but spent £78m to get this overall cost.
Nothing in life is free.
258,000 hectares was valued last year at £700 million = £2,700 per hectare. (1 hectare = 2.47 acres)
Annual maintenance costs on this were £15 million = £58 per hecatare/year.
N.B. They generated £61m but spent £78m to get this overall cost.
Nothing in life is free.
Digga said:
Government's figures are here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/li...
258,000 hectares was valued last year at £700 million = £2,700 per hectare. (1 hectare = 2.47 acres)
Annual maintenance costs on this were £15 million = £58 per hecatare/year.
N.B. They generated £61m but spent £78m to get this overall cost.
Nothing in life is free.
and the qualititative value of having forests that are free for anyone to cycles/walk around in and maintain or better their physical and mental health in is??!?! if the govt are pushing us all to be healthier, why reduce the opportunities for people to engage in such activities. 258,000 hectares was valued last year at £700 million = £2,700 per hectare. (1 hectare = 2.47 acres)
Annual maintenance costs on this were £15 million = £58 per hecatare/year.
N.B. They generated £61m but spent £78m to get this overall cost.
Nothing in life is free.
as for the missing £17m, i'm sure a £2 increase in parking charges would see to that in a few months.... given the interest and publicity this issue has raised, i can see the forests being busy this year....
pablo said:
and the qualititative value of having forests that are free for anyone to cycles/walk around in and maintain or better their physical and mental health in is??!?! if the govt are pushing us all to be healthier, why reduce the opportunities for people to engage in such activities.
as for the missing £17m, i'm sure a £2 increase in parking charges would see to that in a few months.... given the interest and publicity this issue has raised, i can see the forests being busy this year....
The point of the public consultation is to find out people's concerns and make sure these are written into the lease contracts. The government are (all governments are) bad at running businesses. From railways to steelworks to shipyards, government run businesses soon become unviable and are closed. Private industry will invest for profit and will grow the business, securing jobs. Doing this right is a skill and not everyone can do it. That is why the tender lists will have a selection process and a track record of forestry business or estate management will be required to get on the list.as for the missing £17m, i'm sure a £2 increase in parking charges would see to that in a few months.... given the interest and publicity this issue has raised, i can see the forests being busy this year....
The idea of the sale is to get some money to help pay off the country's debts and to see the forests managed on a sound commercial basis. There are many privately owned, or trust owned, forests in the UK that have excellent public access. In fact the Forestry Commission only owns a small percentage of the UK's forests. Private estates offer some excellent public access and commercial interests are likely to see cyclists featuring as a major demographic for forest access, because of the revenue they will bring.
The comment about raising the parking charge is, I am afraid, a classic example of why the forests are better run by businesses. Pablo may not bat an eyelid at an extra £2 for parking but many people will and putting in ticket machines and raising the additional revenue to cover enforcing this would likely mean that the cost would be a lot higher.
Private timber companies will run the forests in profit, or charities will run them at cost and the revenue they get from public access will be in addition to what they make from selling timber. They have no reason to stop public access or to raise access charges to a level that means people stay away and the money stops coming in.
Forest sales in recent years have been very dodgy. No one told until after the sale, no tender process, no conditions on access, no option to buy back, no planning restrictions, nada.
If this is done well (and it looks like the coalition are trying to do it well), it can be a win for the Treasury and a win for us cyclists.
Raven Flyer said:
The point of the public consultation is to find out people's concerns and make sure these are written into the lease contracts. The government are (all governments are) bad at running businesses. From railways to steelworks to shipyards, government run businesses soon become unviable and are closed. Private industry will invest for profit and will grow the business, securing jobs. Doing this right is a skill and not everyone can do it. That is why the tender lists will have a selection process and a track record of forestry business or estate management will be required to get on the list.
The idea of the sale is to get some money to help pay off the country's debts and to see the forests managed on a sound commercial basis. There are many privately owned, or trust owned, forests in the UK that have excellent public access. In fact the Forestry Commission only owns a small percentage of the UK's forests. Private estates offer some excellent public access and commercial interests are likely to see cyclists featuring as a major demographic for forest access, because of the revenue they will bring.
The comment about raising the parking charge is, I am afraid, a classic example of why the forests are better run by businesses. Pablo may not bat an eyelid at an extra £2 for parking but many people will and putting in ticket machines and raising the additional revenue to cover enforcing this would likely mean that the cost would be a lot higher.
Private timber companies will run the forests in profit, or charities will run them at cost and the revenue they get from public access will be in addition to what they make from selling timber. They have no reason to stop public access or to raise access charges to a level that means people stay away and the money stops coming in.
Forest sales in recent years have been very dodgy. No one told until after the sale, no tender process, no conditions on access, no option to buy back, no planning restrictions, nada.
If this is done well (and it looks like the coalition are trying to do it well), it can be a win for the Treasury and a win for us cyclists.
I do think you have your rose tinted glasses on.The idea of the sale is to get some money to help pay off the country's debts and to see the forests managed on a sound commercial basis. There are many privately owned, or trust owned, forests in the UK that have excellent public access. In fact the Forestry Commission only owns a small percentage of the UK's forests. Private estates offer some excellent public access and commercial interests are likely to see cyclists featuring as a major demographic for forest access, because of the revenue they will bring.
The comment about raising the parking charge is, I am afraid, a classic example of why the forests are better run by businesses. Pablo may not bat an eyelid at an extra £2 for parking but many people will and putting in ticket machines and raising the additional revenue to cover enforcing this would likely mean that the cost would be a lot higher.
Private timber companies will run the forests in profit, or charities will run them at cost and the revenue they get from public access will be in addition to what they make from selling timber. They have no reason to stop public access or to raise access charges to a level that means people stay away and the money stops coming in.
Forest sales in recent years have been very dodgy. No one told until after the sale, no tender process, no conditions on access, no option to buy back, no planning restrictions, nada.
If this is done well (and it looks like the coalition are trying to do it well), it can be a win for the Treasury and a win for us cyclists.
What is up for sale is the cherry picked parcels of land.
At no point is the rights of cyclists guarenteed and the costs of maintaining paths for cyclists will prohibit thier upkeep.
Part of the cherry picking process will be that sites will be chosen for the value of timber and or ability to charge users for the recreational use of the facilities. Whatever business / charity takes over the woodland will do so under a financial footing. They have to otherwise they will forclose, charities are not imune to this so money for upkeep will have to be raised somehow. There is also many other overheads to cover, how about the interest / payments on the loans used to purchase the land? staff to maintain? Insurance? associated taxes?
The bottom line is at no point is the rights of the cyclist guarenteed. At no point does the govt say that the COST of access will be kept as it is.
It has been estimated that after costs the government will make only £15m from these sales. That is a small drop in the ocean. Is it worth it?
Lets look at it this way- projected savings from the govt cut backs have been about £7billion. Wh have just lent the Irish govt £7bn. This loan is beacause they were just about to default on the loans we had already given them. even at thier stupidest the banks would never be that dumb. For £15m, we are going to loose the best of our forests? How dumb is that?
Gooby said:
At no point does the govt say that the COST of access will be kept as it is.
Quite and were the forests to stay in government ownership I suspect the Forestry Commission would be told to make them pay.Gooby said:
It has been estimated that after costs the government will make only £15m from these sales. That is a small drop in the ocean. Is it worth it?
Lets look at it this way- projected savings from the govt cut backs have been about £7billion. Wh have just lent the Irish govt £7bn. This loan is beacause they were just about to default on the loans we had already given them. even at thier stupidest the banks would never be that dumb. For £15m, we are going to loose the best of our forests? How dumb is that?
Can you point me to your source of information please.Lets look at it this way- projected savings from the govt cut backs have been about £7billion. Wh have just lent the Irish govt £7bn. This loan is beacause they were just about to default on the loans we had already given them. even at thier stupidest the banks would never be that dumb. For £15m, we are going to loose the best of our forests? How dumb is that?
The figures I have seen are that the government would save £15m a year in subsidising the current business and the forests would be sold for an average of £1k per acre, so that is around £700m. The saving on financing that borrowing will be approx £25m, which will make total annual savings £40m a year with a capital repayment of £700m. That's worth doing.
The UK did lend £7bn to Ireland and did so at 5.8% on a 3 year loan. The UK borrowed the money to do this at around 2%. The £590m profit from the deal will help us pay off more of our own debts, or to look at it another way, means that the taxpayer doesn't pay interest on £20bn of the country's debt for 3 years.
Mid 2010 the UK owed £984bn. The expectation is that current government spending will be £145bn more than it receives in tax ( which is estimated at £370bn). This is like one of us borrowing an amount equivalent to 50% of our annual salary, on a credit card, just to meet our day to day expenses (in the government's case it is almost all spent on the salaries of people who work for the state, the rest on PFI interest bills and the interest on money we have already borrowed). How long do you think we can carry on doing this?
Put simply, it is not that something has to be done, it is that everything has to be done. If the leases are done correctly and cleverly, the whole country benefits and the local users suffer no lose of amenity.
Please don't get me wrong - I am a big fan of the govt spending less. I am a big fan of the govt being a hell of a lot smaller. I would support a british version of "the Tea Party" without the xenophobic racism and gun toting americanism that seems to have taken over the American model. I would also like a government that acted for the interests and wants of the people. With that aim, my first step on the political ladder is soon and I am standing for local govt, sponsored by the Conservative Party (mainly because they asked / offered)
BUT there is a limit — when it comes to selling off the woodlands, it is one step too far. I am a huge fan of our outside spaces, woodland etc.. This may sound like I am a fan of American Politics - I am not, but if an American politician were to stand up and suggest that any part of the national forests (commercial or otherwise) that person would be leaving office so quickly, the door would have no chance to hit him on the way out. I always fail to see why this is not the case in the UK.
I wish I could find the quote regarding the profit would be after expense only £15m. It was on a radio 4 analysis program and the figures made sense as part of the agreements would be for tax exemptions for the charities, most of which will be signing limited time sponsored maintenance agreements and a large number of other concessions levied in order to off load the forests.
There are plenty of 3rd ways, auctioning logging rights, devolving regulation to DEFRA that are not in the consultation.
As for lending money to Ireland - I do actually understand the mechanism that the money has been loaned under. In effect we are loan guarantor. Seems a good idea and a way to generate some profit in the process. It all falls apart when you realise we are lending the money so Ireland can meet their repayments to us. A great idea with a foundation in poo.
It seems well forgotten that Brown (in his finite wisdom) did not give the banks money he purchased large proportions of the troubled banks thus supporting them and preventing them from going under. What seems to have slipped from the public consciousness is now all but a few of the banks are making profits, dividends will start to be due. With dividend payments, there will be less reluctant investors and the British govt can sell shares, thus covering loans.
As for everything being done? Take a look at the budgets that have not been cut, first example is overseas aid. We are giving up our heritage woodland but overseas aid is not being cut? Why and for what benefit? We are selling off the family silver at a cut price so we can give aid ...
BUT there is a limit — when it comes to selling off the woodlands, it is one step too far. I am a huge fan of our outside spaces, woodland etc.. This may sound like I am a fan of American Politics - I am not, but if an American politician were to stand up and suggest that any part of the national forests (commercial or otherwise) that person would be leaving office so quickly, the door would have no chance to hit him on the way out. I always fail to see why this is not the case in the UK.
I wish I could find the quote regarding the profit would be after expense only £15m. It was on a radio 4 analysis program and the figures made sense as part of the agreements would be for tax exemptions for the charities, most of which will be signing limited time sponsored maintenance agreements and a large number of other concessions levied in order to off load the forests.
There are plenty of 3rd ways, auctioning logging rights, devolving regulation to DEFRA that are not in the consultation.
As for lending money to Ireland - I do actually understand the mechanism that the money has been loaned under. In effect we are loan guarantor. Seems a good idea and a way to generate some profit in the process. It all falls apart when you realise we are lending the money so Ireland can meet their repayments to us. A great idea with a foundation in poo.
It seems well forgotten that Brown (in his finite wisdom) did not give the banks money he purchased large proportions of the troubled banks thus supporting them and preventing them from going under. What seems to have slipped from the public consciousness is now all but a few of the banks are making profits, dividends will start to be due. With dividend payments, there will be less reluctant investors and the British govt can sell shares, thus covering loans.
As for everything being done? Take a look at the budgets that have not been cut, first example is overseas aid. We are giving up our heritage woodland but overseas aid is not being cut? Why and for what benefit? We are selling off the family silver at a cut price so we can give aid ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12428814
BBC said:
In a written statement to Parliament, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said the "revised timetable" for the partial sale would give time to consider public concerns about the stewardship of the land concerned and ensure proper safeguards were in place.
"In light of the government commitment to increase protection for access and public benefit in our woodlands, the criteria for these sales will be reviewed so that protections are significantly strengthened following the inadequate measures that were applied to sales under the previous administration," she said.
"Pending this review, no individual woodland site will be put on the market."
'Biodiversity'
The BBC's environment correspondent Jeremy Cooke said: "This small-scale sell-off has been going on for many years.
"What the government is saying is that they will not go ahead and sell off this season's 15% of Forestry Commission land until they have brought in legal safeguards to make sure that any land sold is fully protected both for biodiversity and public access."
"In light of the government commitment to increase protection for access and public benefit in our woodlands, the criteria for these sales will be reviewed so that protections are significantly strengthened following the inadequate measures that were applied to sales under the previous administration," she said.
"Pending this review, no individual woodland site will be put on the market."
'Biodiversity'
The BBC's environment correspondent Jeremy Cooke said: "This small-scale sell-off has been going on for many years.
"What the government is saying is that they will not go ahead and sell off this season's 15% of Forestry Commission land until they have brought in legal safeguards to make sure that any land sold is fully protected both for biodiversity and public access."
Raven Flyer said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12428814
Lets just hope this isnt a tactic to let the storm die down, then sell off on the quiet (again)BBC said:
In a written statement to Parliament, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said the "revised timetable" for the partial sale would give time to consider public concerns about the stewardship of the land concerned and ensure proper safeguards were in place.
"In light of the government commitment to increase protection for access and public benefit in our woodlands, the criteria for these sales will be reviewed so that protections are significantly strengthened following the inadequate measures that were applied to sales under the previous administration," she said.
"Pending this review, no individual woodland site will be put on the market."
'Biodiversity'
The BBC's environment correspondent Jeremy Cooke said: "This small-scale sell-off has been going on for many years.
"What the government is saying is that they will not go ahead and sell off this season's 15% of Forestry Commission land until they have brought in legal safeguards to make sure that any land sold is fully protected both for biodiversity and public access."
"In light of the government commitment to increase protection for access and public benefit in our woodlands, the criteria for these sales will be reviewed so that protections are significantly strengthened following the inadequate measures that were applied to sales under the previous administration," she said.
"Pending this review, no individual woodland site will be put on the market."
'Biodiversity'
The BBC's environment correspondent Jeremy Cooke said: "This small-scale sell-off has been going on for many years.
"What the government is saying is that they will not go ahead and sell off this season's 15% of Forestry Commission land until they have brought in legal safeguards to make sure that any land sold is fully protected both for biodiversity and public access."
timbo48 said:
Looks like the government are reversing the decision according to the BBC today.
Yep; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12488847BBC said:
Forest sale axed: Caroline Spelman says 'I'm sorry'
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff