MUCH heat has been generated on the Coalition Government's intention to sell off state owned forest land to private buyers.

Much of this is unnecessary.

As stated by Councillor Stephen McMillan, we have yet to hear the details and planning law and safeguards against unsustainable exploitation are no different if the forest was managed by an arm's length quango or by private owners. Local planning permission will be necessary for even the tiniest change of land use. Ownership will not make any difference. The Forestry Commission itself has been trying hard to generate income from timber and recreational activities such as cycle tracks and go-ape activities, even selling land on the fringes occasionally to developers. Income falls short of expenditure and the Forestry Commission has been in the red for years.

Forest land under private ownership will gain from more efficient management to save cost. Change of ownership does not necessarily mean clear felling and conversion of woodlands into golf courses, shopping malls or housing estates. It also does not mean forest residents and visitors losing their traditional walks and recreational privileges. There is a stipulation to replant felled land. All existing access and public privileges will have to be maintained regardless of who owns the forest.

Given the low land value and investment income, whether owned by the state or privately, the sale is unlikely to attract the slash and burn kind of investor dreaded by those protesting against the sale. It would be bought more as a long-term investment or simply for making a lifestyle-statement.

What are the alternatives? The new coalition is lumbered with the insurmountable debt left behind by the previous government. Despite support from the council leader, I am not sure if the Forest of Dean Council is contemplating purchase, unless residents are happy to have their council tax doubled to pay for the £10million-plus maintenance bill.

Unless politically motivated, those vociferous in their protestations should put real effort to back up their conviction and set up a community trust and bid for the purchase of the Forest. I am sure key corporates in the Forest of Dean would chip in a few millions to demonstrate their community spirit and get publicity. Given 35,000 householders in the district and that forestry land costs £3,000-£4,000 an acre, it should not take too much from each household to buy the statutory Forest and look after it for posterity. The new trust itself will face the same questions as private owners – who will pay to keep it for posterity.

Coun Venk Shenoi

(Con, Churcham and Huntley)