Why "Save our Forests" rather disappoints...

A few days ago I wrote about the proposals to dispose of all or part of the Forestry Commission's English estate. I remain of the opinion that the Commission is not the best steward for these estates - either as commercial woodland (which is what most of it is) or as public amenity. The Government is consulting about the proposals - the document is here - and it would be rather more helpful if people thought for themselves rather than herding like sheep behind the cry of "save our forests". The purpose of the consultation is set out clearly:

This consultation is about the future ownership and management of the public forest estate in England – land managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

It sets out the rationale for a move away from the Government owning and managing significant areas of woodlands in England and the principles which will guide the Government in deciding the way forward. The consultation proposes a mixed model approach to reforming the ownership and management of the public forest estate to create a far greater role for civil society, businesses and individuals.

So first of all, the proposals isn't for a quick sale of the estate (which would be best achieved through simply putting the lot on the market in one big lump) but a more nuanced proposal. Yet all we hear of the ever shriller cries of "save our forests" - including nonsense like this:

They (the forests) could be auctioned and fenced off, run down, logged or turned into golf courses and holiday villages.

I really don't know where to start with this but it's clear written by someone who has never been anywhere near managing a forest - and I really can see why anyone would buy something just to have it "run down".

Logging? Yes dears, that's what the Forestry Commission do now with the woodlands it owns - it's a commercial forest operator. It's also a regulator which really isn't a good idea and explains why 90% of the Commission's woods are conifer monoculture of little landscape benefit, limited in its contribution to biodiversity and rather lacking in amenity or leisure value.

Golf courses? Good grief - a new game of 'golf in the wood', now that's an idea! Why would a developer go to all the expense - not to mention the planning problems - of clearing a whole forest so as to build a golf course when there's plenty of good open land near towns where they can be developed? Makes no sense - a bit like the suggestion!

Holiday villages! A what exactly is the problem with holiday villages? Don't we already have holiday facilities so people can stay in the woods and enjoy them? Isn't this something to be encouraged? In fact what's this - a business called "Forest Holidays" that 'operates entirely within the Forestry Commission Estate'! Wow! Holiday villages!

This entire campaign is unhelpful - not because the forests should necessarily be sold but because it is founded on misinformation and ignorance rather than presenting any rational discussion about the future of the Forestry Commission's English Estates. There are a few such as Julian Dobson who try to get beyond the slogans to suggest possible ways forward:

It doesn’t necessarily follow that the Forestry Commission or the government are the only people who should own woodlands. Indeed, the idea that some of our best-loved forests should be owned in perpetuity by the National Trust is attractive because it reduces the risk of future sales. But - as I argued in a paper for The Mersey Forest published this month - we can’t expect local communities to take over stewardship of our woodlands without help and investment. The need is for a greater emphasis on the community forests programme alongside a clear recognition by government that our woodlands are a resource to be looked after for generations to come.

Julian's focus is on the amenity value of woodland and especially the development of woodland in and near urban areas. But there is a further discussion to be had - that of balancing the different options and opportunities presented by the variety of wood and forest. I see no reason why the upland commercial woodland can't be sold - so long as access rights are guaranteed (and this should, for these forests, extend to include cycles and horses). For the less commercial forests, we need a debate about management, leisure, amenity and different potential uses set alongside an examination of options for future ownership.

It seems to me that the government is consulting with a three-year-old - the opponents simply scream "save our forests" rather than taking the opportunity to ask whether the proposed 'sell-off' actually presents opportunities for trusts, co-operatives and others to secure the woodland for public use and enjoyment.

I find this rather disappointing.

....

Thoughts on the planning system....

I was thinking today - in one of those idle moments - why it is that we are so conflicted about ownership. And, more importantly, why we persist in the almost feudal belief that ownership is a permission rather than a right.

Except of course that, in the case of real estate and related property rights, this is the case. We are, de facto, serfs and have been since 1947:

In 1947 the Town & Country Planning Act was published, providing the first comprehensive basis for the control of development and land uses in this country. Before 1947 the use of land and development was largely uncontrolled, although some limitations were exercised through Public Health and local Acts.

The 1947 Act introduced a comprehensive system for the control of development and since then (with some specific exceptions) no land owner has been entitled to carry out any development without first obtaining the necessary planning permission.

You can only make use of your real estate property with the permission of government. Only those uses that our masters permit are allowed. And the government can (and does) act precipitously, aggressively and arbitrarily to enforce its feudal authority over our land.

While other parts of the 1945-1950 Labour Government's attempts to enforce socialism through fiat are gradually being dismantled (the nationalisation of industry, elements of the "welfare state", the assumptions of free care and so on), nobody - not even the most swivel-eyed right winger - is questioning whether we should start to dismantle the "planning system".

The current coalition government is saying that its "open source planning" proposals represent a dramatic and radical shift in the planning system. Which at one level is true - the 'regional' agenda is removed and greater 'community engagement' is promised. But the truly radical change - a real presumption in favour of development - is nowhere to be seen. Planners will still cling to their authoritarian powers to direct the uses of our land and can still, at the stroke of a pen, turn someone from a pauper to a plutocrat. And they love it - and hate any diminution of their power:

The Institute said it was particularly concerned that the government’s proposals to abolish regional planning – contained in the proposed Decentralisation and Localism Bill – are based mainly on an objection to imposed regional housing targets rather than to the principle of strategic planning.

The RTPI added that it “strongly advocates” the need for strategic-level planning that co-ordinates development and infrastructure between different areas, provides a wide range of environmental policies, and ensures that the needs of the wider than local community are properly addressed.

You can't just let people decide for themselves what to do with land - it might not be 'strategic' (whatever that may mean)! The truth is that these powers, linked to what the Yanks call 'eminent domain' and we call 'compulsory purchase', provide government with the ability to confiscate land for almost any purpose.

Giving local places more controls is a real step forward - and the 'community right to build' (the 'thin end of the wedge' as I heard one planner call it) allows communities to make development choices themselves rather than allowing the planners to make their random, arbitrary 'strategic' choices. But we need to go further - to really trust local places to discuss, debate and negotiate development between landowners, builders and the people whose amenity is directly affected by that development. Without the expensive, rules-bound, legalistic planning system to prevent sensible, locally-supported developments proceeding.

I spend more time arguing for flexibility in 'green belt' controls - to permit farm conversions, to allow holiday lets, to facilitate modern farming practice and to let landowners make careful, supported decisions about sensitive landscape - than I do "defending" that green belt from rapacious developers.

Perhaps what we need is a real local 'tribunal' process - with our without us councillors - that arbitrates between the landowner's rights and the rights of those affected by development. All the volumes of planning guidance (or "statements" as they now are) do not help this process - they merely act as a barrier. This isn't an argument for scrapping planning but a case for trusting local people and the people they elect to make the right decisions - free from lawyers, planners and inspectors.

....

Smoking, drinking and the buying of pubs

Had a long discussion yesterday evening – fuelled by beer and whisky – with neighbours in the village about The Fleece, which is sadly lacking a tenant at present. Now this isn’t an idle conversation – the local pub is an important institution and some residents are seriously considering taking on the tenancy. The pubco are keen to talk with us and there are maybe a dozen or so villagers who might be up for the project.

The first community run pub was the Old Crown at Hesket Newmarket in Cumbria and there is a growing interest in such initiatives (to the point where politicians are clambering onto the bandwagon). Here in Cullingworth there’s a little more thinking to be done yet (probably with a little less drinking involved) and I guess that there are big differences between pubs and between communities.

However, none of these initiatives and the apparent government support changes the fundamental truth about the pub trade. Over the past ten years or so, the licensed trade has been subjected to the most comprehensive and deliberate attack from the agents of the state. It’s not just the smoking ban where Labour reneged on their 1997 election promise, nor the blaming of pubs for binge drinking - it is the indulgence of the new prohibitionists – men like Ian Gilmore (President of the Royal College of Physicians and militant prohibitionist) and pseudo-charities like Alcohol Concern – that is driving an anti-pleasure agenda.

And when I see Labour MPs getting all weepy over the demise of pubs, I want to scream at them – “It’s your fault, you stupid, opportunistic twit.” Putting up £4 million for community owned pubs is welcome but set against the billions the Labour government is taking in taxes from the business and the damage done by Labour’s smoking ban it is a drop in the ocean.

...