Forest of Dean
Sir: As one who began a student career many years ago in forestry, it saddens me to have to answer Mr Troup's letter (8 October) relating to the Forest of Dean. I know and respect many of the forestry officials and I would prefer laying the responsibility where it properly belongs, that is with the Ministry of Agriculture, which is ultimately responsible for the administration of the Forest of Dean. Since the Ministry will not listen and understand the general argument, I must enlarge under various charges. Sales of land by the Ministry have not been in the interest of the community at large. Footpaths giving access to the Forest have been blocked by sales of land. Similarly, passage between areas has been blocked. Private householders have had their access sold or nearly sold over their heads.
Rights of Way and Right of Access are considered non-existent in the Forest by the Ministry. This attitude has spread to woodlands conjoined with but not part of the Forest in the strict sense (Flaxley, High MeadoN, Ruardean). In these cases the land has a similar legal position to any estate land in England. It is obvious to any person even slightly aware of footpath patterns that these footpaths and bridleways exist. A great deal of trouble is being caused to the Gloucestershire authorities and local organisations to contend the Ministry's attitude. Very few estate owners would behave in this way. The Ministry with its bureaucratic power acts beyond reason. The Ministry argue that it is not convenient for forestry practice to have footpaths as rights of way. Any farmer could use the same argument. In the Forest (in the strict sense) the Ministry claim that an 1808 Act gives them leave to deny all access rights. This is quite clearly false, as any who read the Act can tell.
The Ministry has not cared for the conservation of amenity and natural history. Unfortunately for Mr Troup's case, it is claimed that the Minister of Agriculture laid down the policy for the Forest in 1971. In that year, the Minister also stated that no open-cast coal mining would operate at the particular site of Woorgreen in the heart of the Forest near Speech House. This last month, the present Minister gave permission for such working. This was done without any local consultation whatsoever. The area involved is one mile long and a third of a mile wide. This open-cast operation will alter the character of nearby nature 'reserves'. Much of the `waste' of the Forest used to be of considerable ecological interest. A great deal has been drained, planted or sold. A number of areas at one time listed for preservation as nature reserves have been 'denatured' by afforestation.
The statutes of the country have been used to further the convenience of the Ministry to the detriment of the public interest. Most of the anciient statutes pro tecting the Forest have been repealed. The effect has been to leave no rights of consequence on the side of the people. Further, the Dean is government land. The administration is not bound by normal planning laws.
The overall impact is that the Ministry is becoming more of a Big Brother. If the common people have no rights, the way is open for the bureaucracy to do what it likes (for good or ill). It is certainly not in my own interest to cross swords with the Commission. I need their support as I wish to support them. I am sad at recounting this matter, as I would be seeing a loved friend becoming alienated and friendless, and that possibly through no fault of their own. Brian Cave, The Council for the Protection of Rural England, Wilderness Field Study Centre, Mitcheldean
Previous page
