Forestry Comission may sell of up to 1.85M acres
Discussion
Some of the woodland being considered for the sale will cover popular mountain biking desitinations; Hamsterley, Whinlatter, Delamere, Dalby, Cannock Chase, Sherwood Pines, Wyre forest and Haldon Forest Park.
Doesn't seem to spell the end for mtbing but is worth keeping an eye on: Bike Radar
Doesn't seem to spell the end for mtbing but is worth keeping an eye on: Bike Radar
Edited by Digga on Tuesday 2nd November 17:08
Might not be the tale of woe that some on BR are wailing about...
Llandegla for example is privately owned and run, forgetting the 'work in progress' feel of the trails at the moment it's incredibly well run, the trails - at least a few weeks ago when I was there are supremely well maintained and they're building some really amazing looking stuff at a rate of knots.
Lot of folk are talking about costs to riders going up, but it might not be the case, Llandegla is no more or less expensive than anywhere else, plus there's a certain amount of waste with publicy owned trail centres - South Wales was awarded £5.6m that's £5,600,000.00! to improve and merge to market themselves to the world. The sum total of this it seems is a bit of maintenance and a lot of money being burnt up coming up with a combined name for South Wales trail centres - what a waste! Considering the most expensive trail built in SW was the Mojo at Cwmcarn (mostly due to the construction of the tunnel and making a very wet hillside stand up to lots of riders 365 days a year they could have DOUBLED the amount of trail we have now, built miles of green / blue graded stuff to attrach noobs and familes and maintained them for a couple of years - build it and they will come etc.
Llandegla got none of this money, or the £6.2m North Wales got and is building pretty much constantly.
Llandegla for example is privately owned and run, forgetting the 'work in progress' feel of the trails at the moment it's incredibly well run, the trails - at least a few weeks ago when I was there are supremely well maintained and they're building some really amazing looking stuff at a rate of knots.
Lot of folk are talking about costs to riders going up, but it might not be the case, Llandegla is no more or less expensive than anywhere else, plus there's a certain amount of waste with publicy owned trail centres - South Wales was awarded £5.6m that's £5,600,000.00! to improve and merge to market themselves to the world. The sum total of this it seems is a bit of maintenance and a lot of money being burnt up coming up with a combined name for South Wales trail centres - what a waste! Considering the most expensive trail built in SW was the Mojo at Cwmcarn (mostly due to the construction of the tunnel and making a very wet hillside stand up to lots of riders 365 days a year they could have DOUBLED the amount of trail we have now, built miles of green / blue graded stuff to attrach noobs and familes and maintained them for a couple of years - build it and they will come etc.
Llandegla got none of this money, or the £6.2m North Wales got and is building pretty much constantly.
spikeyhead said:
Whenever I've looked at buying woodland then any public rights of way have to be kept open.
Won't be public if it's sold, it would be private and you will probably have to pay £5 a lap of your favourite bike park.Don't know if these petitions have any clout but signed to it anyway. http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forest...
Steve UK said:
spikeyhead said:
Whenever I've looked at buying woodland then any public rights of way have to be kept open.
Won't be public if it's sold, it would be private and you will probably have to pay £5 a lap of your favourite bike park.I was there on Saturday to blast the new Nicolai around the black sections. I happened to drive up on my own, but met two mates from Manchester there who'd shared a car - so they got in for £1.25 each.
As P-jay said, there's been some great new stuff added to Llandegla and there's more about to be completed - a new black finish option.
spikeyhead said:
Whenever I've looked at buying woodland then any public rights of way have to be kept open.
Vast majority of forest track access is permissive rather than as of right. More commercially minded operators could charge for such permission or simply withdraw it if that better suited. Any disposal would be ill-judged in my view but suspect it will happen.Pupp said:
spikeyhead said:
Whenever I've looked at buying woodland then any public rights of way have to be kept open.
Vast majority of forest track access is permissive rather than as of right. More commercially minded operators could charge for such permission or simply withdraw it if that better suited. Any disposal would be ill-judged in my view but suspect it will happen.As well as mountain biking, I take part in cross country running races.
At a recent race, on Cannock Chase (part of which the FC is considering disposal of in its potential sell-off) the organiser aluded to the high cost of access for the event. Much of the event was actually on County Council land (who own much of the rest of the Chase), so I think the cost of organsising events is at a commerical rate anyway, irrespective of the ownership.
I may be wrong though.
At a recent race, on Cannock Chase (part of which the FC is considering disposal of in its potential sell-off) the organiser aluded to the high cost of access for the event. Much of the event was actually on County Council land (who own much of the rest of the Chase), so I think the cost of organsising events is at a commerical rate anyway, irrespective of the ownership.
I may be wrong though.
You can complete & return the public consultation survey here:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfeconsultation
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfeconsultation
Roman said:
You can complete & return the public consultation survey here:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfeconsultation
Seems to be missing a very important question - Do you want the govt to sell off forests?http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfeconsultation
Without that it is a worthless "consultation".
There was an item on Radio 4 about the disposal of Forestry Comission land which included some interesting statistics.
The government could raise £100 million from the process of leasing the woodland out. At the moment the Forestry commision costs the exchequor about £10 million per annum with money from the sale of timber going back into the F.C.
The government pays subsidies to private forestry of £30 million p.a., so to get rid of the land that we can all enjoy at present will pay the subsidy to private companies for 3 years - big deal! What wasn't mentioned was if the land they were planning to lease off would be eligible for a subsidy too for the new 'owner'.
A disgraceful state of affairs, selling a national asset for a poxy short term gain which will be eaten up in paying subsidies anyway!
(I am biased pro forestry commission as I have had a season pass for Dalby Forest in North Yorkshire for many years, and often visit Grizedale and Whinlatter in the Lake District too - not just for biking, but for picnics and walks with the family too).
The government could raise £100 million from the process of leasing the woodland out. At the moment the Forestry commision costs the exchequor about £10 million per annum with money from the sale of timber going back into the F.C.
The government pays subsidies to private forestry of £30 million p.a., so to get rid of the land that we can all enjoy at present will pay the subsidy to private companies for 3 years - big deal! What wasn't mentioned was if the land they were planning to lease off would be eligible for a subsidy too for the new 'owner'.
A disgraceful state of affairs, selling a national asset for a poxy short term gain which will be eaten up in paying subsidies anyway!
(I am biased pro forestry commission as I have had a season pass for Dalby Forest in North Yorkshire for many years, and often visit Grizedale and Whinlatter in the Lake District too - not just for biking, but for picnics and walks with the family too).
One of the forests is the New Forest, not really known for its commercial logging. TBH, sell it, sell it all into private hands. Pretty soon there will be a lot of really nice houses in beautiful countryside to buy and for me and my family to move into.....
We all know what this is really about, and we all know where it will end up.
We all know what this is really about, and we all know where it will end up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/fores...
Interesting
We have some serious access problems around here. 2 main landowners, Rempstone estate and National trust are a right pain. National trust have become quite "militant" about horse riders and in turn MTB'ers. Anyone straying from paths are fined and they are talking about banning certain paths. This has caused uproar amongst the locals and the National Trust has eased off a little.
Rempstone estate has stuck up fences and "private keep out" signs. This has been mostly due to a problem with a small and beautiful area of SSSI. Idiots on scramblers and quad bikes were caught tearing up a slice of the SSSI. The motorbikers were fined £20k and the landowner (Rempstone) was fined £30k for allowing it to happen. Rempstone estate "hosts" BP Which Farm so they are not short of a few pounds.
The upshot is all Rempstone land - probably about 20% of land area but contains some of the best singletrack. It has been met with 3 responces.
Many fences have been cut and when replaced, cut again.
Signs have been ignored
and some of the less ridden trails have been abandoned.
I can see the same thing happening after the sell off.
Interesting
We have some serious access problems around here. 2 main landowners, Rempstone estate and National trust are a right pain. National trust have become quite "militant" about horse riders and in turn MTB'ers. Anyone straying from paths are fined and they are talking about banning certain paths. This has caused uproar amongst the locals and the National Trust has eased off a little.
Rempstone estate has stuck up fences and "private keep out" signs. This has been mostly due to a problem with a small and beautiful area of SSSI. Idiots on scramblers and quad bikes were caught tearing up a slice of the SSSI. The motorbikers were fined £20k and the landowner (Rempstone) was fined £30k for allowing it to happen. Rempstone estate "hosts" BP Which Farm so they are not short of a few pounds.
The upshot is all Rempstone land - probably about 20% of land area but contains some of the best singletrack. It has been met with 3 responces.
Many fences have been cut and when replaced, cut again.
Signs have been ignored
and some of the less ridden trails have been abandoned.
I can see the same thing happening after the sell off.
Edited by Gooby on Monday 31st January 16:47
For those interested, as well as the 38degrees petition mentioned earlier there is a Woodland Trust petition here:
http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/campaigning/sav...
http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/campaigning/sav...
I recieved a 'mail from my MP (who voted "yes" to the sell off...
Thank you for your email. Could I clarify, I did not vote for the 'sell off'
> but against Labour's opposition day debate which is a very different thing.
>
> No decision has been made regarding the future of our woodland. However a lot
> of misleading statements about denial to access of our treasured forests, such
> as the New Forest have been made by Labour and are bouncing around in the
> media.
>
> The Government has however, put out a consultation document which people are
> encouraged to comment on. It considers three aspects of the management of our
> woodlands: major public forests (such as the New Forest), community woodlands
> and commercial forests.
>
> There will be a full debate on the results of the consultation in due course
> and I hope the Government will listen to the deluge of views which echo your
> concerns about retaining responsible management of Britain's forests.
>
> Thank you once again for getting in touch.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Tobias
>
>
> Link to consultation:
> <http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/forests/20110127-forests-letter.pdf
> >http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/forests/20110127-forests-letter.pdf
>
> Sent from IPAD
> Sent from IPAD
>
> Tobias Ellwood MP
> Parliamentary Private Secretary
> to the Secretary of State for Defence
Thank you for your email. Could I clarify, I did not vote for the 'sell off'
> but against Labour's opposition day debate which is a very different thing.
>
> No decision has been made regarding the future of our woodland. However a lot
> of misleading statements about denial to access of our treasured forests, such
> as the New Forest have been made by Labour and are bouncing around in the
> media.
>
> The Government has however, put out a consultation document which people are
> encouraged to comment on. It considers three aspects of the management of our
> woodlands: major public forests (such as the New Forest), community woodlands
> and commercial forests.
>
> There will be a full debate on the results of the consultation in due course
> and I hope the Government will listen to the deluge of views which echo your
> concerns about retaining responsible management of Britain's forests.
>
> Thank you once again for getting in touch.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Tobias
>
>
> Link to consultation:
> <http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/forests/20110127-forests-letter.pdf
> >http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/forests/20110127-forests-letter.pdf
>
> Sent from IPAD
> Sent from IPAD
>
> Tobias Ellwood MP
> Parliamentary Private Secretary
> to the Secretary of State for Defence
I have responded;-
My concerns have nothing to do with Labor spin but please believe me the Conservative handling of the matter is terrible if not worse.
This decision ranks on the stupidity of Gordon Brown selling gold reserves and taxing pensions. It is the rape of our national assets and our heritage.
My concerns are not about walking about the forests. I am very concerned about the rights of Mountain bikers and Horse riders. At no point has it been pointed out that these rights of access will be protected. It is arrogant and dismissive to work under the assumption that the only people to use the forest are walkers and the only people with rights worth protecting are the ramblers.
Charities and commercial organisations have one thing in common, they need money. In order to preserve the rights of use the money will need to be generated in some way. Charges for parking (increased charges for parking) commercialised trail centers (Moors Valley) all turning the simple joys of a forest into a shopping experience. If it is not commercially viable then the basic rights will be afforded but ancillaries like horse riding and Mountain biking will be removed.
The "lease off" and "Charity give away" seems to be justified as the Forestry commission is regulator and operator in its own environment. The knee jerk solution to The mess that is to dispose of the forestry commissions assets. Why not just transfer the regulatory duties to DEFRA? That option does not mean a sell off of national assets but does solve the regulatory issues.
The government consultations are disgraceful as they fail to ask the first and most important question, "do you wish to have these forests sold off" Without that question it is useless and works on the presumption that you accept the disposal of woodland. This does scream of the incompetence that this matter has been dealt with.
Commercial woodland - Large and small, this holds very little bio-diversity and is less picturesque than other woodlands. If rights of access are to be maintained then some sort of payment will have to be made for parking / use of facilities.
Heritage / ancient woodland. These will have to be managed and maintained without the end result of a cash crop. How on earth will maintenance be paid for? The conservative party (of which I am a member) must think we are morons if they think we can not do a simple act of addition. A right of access will be maintained but some sort of cost for parking will have to be levied - effectively charging for the right of access. The bottom line is a commercial or charity organisation has to make money in order to exist.
New Forest is common Land, how can the government sell what is not theirs?
I use this as an example of access to land in private hands. In the Purbecs, we have some access problems. Two main landowners, Rempstone Estate and National Trust are a right pain. National trust have become quite "militant" about horse riders and in turn Mountain Bikers. Anyone straying from paths are fined and they are talking about banning certain paths. This has caused uproar amongst the locals and the National Trust has eased off a little.
Rempstone estate has erected fences and "private keep out" signs.
The upshot is all Rempstone land - probably about 20% of land area but contains some of the best single-track (and Walks). It has been met with 3 responses.
Many fences have been cut and when replaced, cut again.
Signs have been ignored and some of the less ridden trails have been abandoned.
I can see the same thing happening after the "sell off".
I object that some sort of consultation has been banded around when the decision has already been made. It seems we are organising sleeping arrangements on the Titanic.
The forests are important to citizens as the UK is overpopulated and the forests are one place you can go to enjoy space. To split political hairs over access rights when the bottom line has to be our access rights will be at a cost is pathetic.
Mr. Elwood, please represent your electorate and stand up against this sell off.
Regards,
My concerns have nothing to do with Labor spin but please believe me the Conservative handling of the matter is terrible if not worse.
This decision ranks on the stupidity of Gordon Brown selling gold reserves and taxing pensions. It is the rape of our national assets and our heritage.
My concerns are not about walking about the forests. I am very concerned about the rights of Mountain bikers and Horse riders. At no point has it been pointed out that these rights of access will be protected. It is arrogant and dismissive to work under the assumption that the only people to use the forest are walkers and the only people with rights worth protecting are the ramblers.
Charities and commercial organisations have one thing in common, they need money. In order to preserve the rights of use the money will need to be generated in some way. Charges for parking (increased charges for parking) commercialised trail centers (Moors Valley) all turning the simple joys of a forest into a shopping experience. If it is not commercially viable then the basic rights will be afforded but ancillaries like horse riding and Mountain biking will be removed.
The "lease off" and "Charity give away" seems to be justified as the Forestry commission is regulator and operator in its own environment. The knee jerk solution to The mess that is to dispose of the forestry commissions assets. Why not just transfer the regulatory duties to DEFRA? That option does not mean a sell off of national assets but does solve the regulatory issues.
The government consultations are disgraceful as they fail to ask the first and most important question, "do you wish to have these forests sold off" Without that question it is useless and works on the presumption that you accept the disposal of woodland. This does scream of the incompetence that this matter has been dealt with.
Commercial woodland - Large and small, this holds very little bio-diversity and is less picturesque than other woodlands. If rights of access are to be maintained then some sort of payment will have to be made for parking / use of facilities.
Heritage / ancient woodland. These will have to be managed and maintained without the end result of a cash crop. How on earth will maintenance be paid for? The conservative party (of which I am a member) must think we are morons if they think we can not do a simple act of addition. A right of access will be maintained but some sort of cost for parking will have to be levied - effectively charging for the right of access. The bottom line is a commercial or charity organisation has to make money in order to exist.
New Forest is common Land, how can the government sell what is not theirs?
I use this as an example of access to land in private hands. In the Purbecs, we have some access problems. Two main landowners, Rempstone Estate and National Trust are a right pain. National trust have become quite "militant" about horse riders and in turn Mountain Bikers. Anyone straying from paths are fined and they are talking about banning certain paths. This has caused uproar amongst the locals and the National Trust has eased off a little.
Rempstone estate has erected fences and "private keep out" signs.
The upshot is all Rempstone land - probably about 20% of land area but contains some of the best single-track (and Walks). It has been met with 3 responses.
Many fences have been cut and when replaced, cut again.
Signs have been ignored and some of the less ridden trails have been abandoned.
I can see the same thing happening after the "sell off".
I object that some sort of consultation has been banded around when the decision has already been made. It seems we are organising sleeping arrangements on the Titanic.
The forests are important to citizens as the UK is overpopulated and the forests are one place you can go to enjoy space. To split political hairs over access rights when the bottom line has to be our access rights will be at a cost is pathetic.
Mr. Elwood, please represent your electorate and stand up against this sell off.
Regards,
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff