for sale - cannock chase - offers invited

When it (FC) recently flogged an area of woodland for £60,000, for example, the new landowner immediately applied for funds under the English Woodland Grant Scheme to grow and cut timber and was given assistance totalling £55,000.

Click to expand...

Mr T.Monkey Esq. said:

Hi Mr Lefroy,

I see you voted in favour of selling off the forests, and am curious why? From what I can see the savings are negligable, especially when compared to the billions that firms like vodafone and tesco are allowed to dodge in tax. I spend a lot of time on Cannock Chase, many constituents have helped create the wonderful mountain bike trails we have, and are already feeling the pain of the parking charges rising the better WE make the area. The selling off of our forests seems to be a pointless exercise, almost designed to annoy the population while something else slips past?

If you can show me how this will benefit our town I am happy to listen, but for now it seems you are just following party line like David Kidney did. His blind voting on the Digital Economy Act made sure I could never vote for him again, I hope this doesn't do the same for you.

Thanks,
Tek Monkey

Click to expand...

Our absent member said:

Dear Mr Monkey,

Thank you for your email. I understand your concern over our forests and woodlands and in particular Cannock Chase. I have made it clear in public that I oppose any removal of the Forestry Commission owned part of Cannock Chase from public ownership (the remainder is owned by the National Trust, local authorities and private landowners).

The plan put forward by the Government for consultation is over the 18% of our woodlands currently owned by the Forestry Commission - the remaining 82% is in the hands of local authorities, charities such as the Woodland Trust and the National Trust and private owners.

I voted for the amendment (quoted in full at the end of the email) to the Labour Party’s opposition day motion. At the moment, the position is that public forestry estate can be sold off with inadequate safeguards for public access, as indeed has happened recently. The Government’s proposals seek to remedy that. They also seek to guarantee the future protection of heritage forests.

I agree with the general principles contained in the amendment which is why I voted for it. However I do have several serious reservations about important details which is why I shall be responding in full to the consultation. I am also listening very carefully to what you and all the other constituents who have written to me are saying.

The Government has assured MPs and the public that it will take very careful note of what people say in the consultation. Hence it is very important for as many people as possible to respond to it.

In my reply to the consultation, I shall be making the following points among others:

1) The Forestry Commission owned part of Cannock Chase should be designated a heritage forest, in the same category as the New Forest and the Forest of Dean. That would mean that it will remain in public ownership of some kind whether through a charity such as the National Trust or another public body.
2) Transfers of heritage forests to charities such as the National Trust need to be done in such a way as to ensure that the charity is in a position properly to manage it.
3) Multi-purpose woodlands and forests (which are not of heritage status) should be offered for sale to charities or local communities (ie should remain for the benefit of the public).

I will also be forwarding to the Secretary of State a summary of all the correspondence I have received from constituents on this matter so that she is aware of the views of people in Stafford constituency.
Thank you for contacting me.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Lefroy
Member of Parliament for Stafford constituency

Text of amendment voted on: "deplores the actions of the previous administration in selling off 25,000 acres of public forestry estate with wholly inadequate protections; notes that the previous administration sought to go even further in finding ways to exploit the forestry estate for commercial gain as recently as 2009; welcomes the consultation proposals to guarantee the future protection of heritage forests by offering them charitable trust status; supports the consultation proposals for robust access and public benefit conditions that will be put in place through lease conditions, including access rights for cyclists and horse-riders; believes the leasehold conditions regarding biodiversity and wildlife conservation will safeguard significant important environmental benefits; sees these proposals as important in resolving the conflict of interest whereby the Forestry Commission is the regulator of the timber sector whilst being the largest operator in the England timber market; considers that debate on the future of the forest estate ought to be conducted on the basis of the facts of the Government's proposals; and believes that under these proposals people will continue to enjoy the access and benefits they currently have from the woodlands of England."

House of Commons, Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA

t +44 (0) 20 7219 7154 f +44 (0) 20 7219 4186
e jeremy.lefroy.mp@parliament.uk w jeremylefroy.com

Please consider the environment – do you need to print this e-mail?

UK Parliament Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

Click to expand...

Our absent member said:

1) The Forestry Commission owned part of Cannock Chase should be designated a heritage forest, in the same category as the New Forest and the Forest of Dean. That would mean that it will remain in public ownership of some kind whether through a charity such as the National Trust or another public body.
2) Transfers of heritage forests to charities such as the National Trust need to be done in such a way as to ensure that the charity is in a position properly to manage it.
3) Multi-purpose woodlands and forests (which are not of heritage status) should be offered for sale to charities or local communities (ie should remain for the benefit of the public).

Click to expand...

John Marwood said:

he can appear to give way/back down/ give ground and appease

Lark

Click to expand...

blueshirt said:

Don't you just feel sorry for the backbench fodder. They have to change their minds all the time. As soon as they have written letters to constituents arguing one way, they then have to argue the other. We've got a "You don't know what you're doing" Government -

Click to expand...