SINCE writing a letter to you last September, I have become increasingly concerned about the misuse and indeed the meaning of the descriptive term 'forest waste' especially when associated with planning applications.

When the Forestry Commission recently applied for planning permission, such land was categorised as forest waste. Their rather loose definition of "land managed and owned by the Commission, but not for timber production" is synonymous with being worthless/rubbish woodlands and could become a byword for all seeking planning permission. I share the concerns of the secretary of the Commoners' Association, Mick Holder.

The CA has recently emphasised the unjust case at Mile End, where the Forestry Commission has exploited this loophole of forest waste for developing what is essentially a woodland environment.

Even the planning inspector determining the planning appeal had jumped on the bandwagon, when he misused the forest waste description to justify his findings to allow planning consent.

This aspect, where an inspector can visit a site and then write a few words citing "forest waste" to overturn a virtual millennium full of endeavour and hard earned freedoms by foresters, must be rectified immediately.

In 1981, when an identical confrontation with the Government took place, there were sensible protocols in place which allowed cottagers to purchase, for example, small garden extensions. However, these latest attempts to sell off public land could jeopardise much of what has been achieved by the District Council and the HOOF Campaign.

Finally, further clarification is required to define the term "forest waste" within the Forest of Dean. The District Council Core Strategy Document is currently out for public consultation and therefore provides an opportunity to define a policy statement for "forest waste".

Andrew Gardiner

Ruardean