Save Our Forests
* The Government is planning to sell over 635,000 acres of woodland
* Once woodland has been sold, the public will no longer have any automatic "right to roam" on the land
* The "right to roam" laws do not include riding
* Selling public woodland will dramatically reduce riders' rights to ride, force more and more riders on to increasingly dangerous roads and even force many riders to stop riding altogether.
"It is for US to exploit this unique opportunity for consultation presented via a coalition government supporting environmental democracy. It is also for US to question WHY New Labour did not adopt this new democracy?"
Steve Yandall replies to Andrew George MP
My Parliamentary representative, and Lib/Dem lead on DEFRA,Mr Andrew George has written a very illuminating letter which should add perspective to the forestry consultation.
Within Mr George's points ,and my overview, please be mindful that there are two major initiatives to consider;
1. the obvious leasehold sale of a public asset.
2. the first example of Aarhus compliance driving a consultation process on a national level(and probably ever in the UK despite becoming statute in 2005).I would suggest that this a far more important issue than point 1 and indicative of our current governments will to drive public involvement in environmental matters.
The starting point is that we will retain ownership as the consultation promotes leasehold ,not freehold, and our current rights(inc.equine/bycycles)will be robustly protected both in terms of the contracts and the target of leasing to local interest groups.
Everything we would expect of the Forestry Commision will be enshrined with the addition of the innovation associated with independent ownership.We thus face the prospect of returning to the micromanagement which built local character whilst retaining the best attributes of public management.
To put the sale in context we must recall that our previous government:
And the current oppositions; 1.attempt to obstruct public consultation by tabling a debate at the launch of the consultation document/process. 2.failure to recognise the public right to consultation and participation that was statute through several years of their governance.
The nub of the issue is that the consultation process must ensure that no downside exists IF leasehold sales are progressed.If we achieve that there is no reason to view the leasehold as anything other than positive.
It is for US to exploit this unique opportunity for consultation presented via a coalition government supporting environmental democracy.It is also for us to question WHY New Labour did not adopt this new democracy?
I fully support the leasehold of this massive national asset but would have resisted a straight sale and urge all interested parties to exchange views and to participate in the consultation process.
Progress, opportunity and benefit all exist within this initiative and it is for us to create accountability for delivering our expectations!