Riding in the Forests

HANSARD Have the Rights of Way been properly recorded?

2011-02-01T05:50:00.000-08:00

DISPOSAL OF LAND
HC Deb 31 March 1981 vol 2 cc176-212

176

§ Mr. Paul Marland (Gloucestershire, West)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, after 'section', insert `with the exception of the Royal Forest of Dean'. ……….

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (Berwick and East Lothian)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is all right for forests in other parts of the country to be sold to faceless investors but not the Forest of Dean?

§ Mr. Marland

The ancient traditions exist in the Royal Forest of Dean. It is a national asset and in some ways a national monument. Hundreds of thousands of people go there every year either for the day or for their holidays. They go there to examine the national heritage of the Royal Forest of Dean. They go walking, riding, swimming, picnicking and caravanning. They walk unrestricted through the trees.

The Forestry Commission has done much to encourage such tourism, and locally it has a good reputation. The commission has laid out the forest trails, established picnic spots and camping grounds, and allowed the visitors and local people to enjoy the freedom of the forest whenever they choose. However, such privileges have no legal status. If the forest were sold to faceless investors those rights could be snuffed out and people would be denied rights of access.

For centuries forest sheep have grazed there. The graziers are well aware that their sheep cause problems in some areas. If one goes down Cinderford High Street on a hot afternoon and one's way is barred by 25 sheep sunbathing, one can see that the people have a point.

The graziers, through their commoners' association, have co-operated with the commission in the restriction of numbers of sheep that they graze in the forest. Each sheep has to be clearly marked and flocks in the Cinderford area are hefted elsewhere on ground provided by the commission. It is easy to understand why the graziers believe it to be their right to graze their sheep in the Forest of Dean. This belief in their ancient rights and customs is reinforced by the fact that, although in 1808, under the Dean and New Forest Act, the foresters were discharged from all rights of common and from all manners of rights, claims and privileges to the Forest of Dean, they continued to enjoy those rights and privileges at the discretion of the Forestry Commission.

Then, in 1965, according to the Forest of Dean district council's legal department, under the provisions of the Commons Registration Act, local inhabitants were prevented from registering their interest and their rights of way in this common. It seems, therefore, that the Crown took away the statutory right of common and rights of way in 1808, and that local people have not been allowed to register their common rights since then.

If the Forest of Dean is sold there will be no forest trails, no picnic sites and no sheep, because they do not enjoy legal status. In their place will be high fences and "keep out" notices, if the new owner of the Forest is so inclined. The smoothly reassuring words of the Parliamentary 178 Secretary and the equally reassuring commitment by Forestry Commission officials that the Forest of Dean would never be sold off, coupled with the assertion that if the forest were offered for sale no one would buy it because too many local interests would prevent people from buying it, are not enough. If the land were cheap enough, someone would buy it. If the Forestry Commission decided that it wanted money at a later date, it might well sell the forest.

We want more than a gentleman's agreement that the Forest of Dean will not be sold off. It is a sad fact that Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food come and go, Forestry Commission officials come and go, and Members of Parliament for Gloucestershire, West undoubtedly come and go, so more than a gentleman's agreement is needed to ensure the freedom of the Forest of Dean for future generations.

It is not true to say that we cannot make exceptions. Under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 an exception was made for small coal mining operations such as those which abound in the Forest of Dean. I believe that the Royal Forest of Dean is a special case, and I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept my amendment.

Mr. Mark Hughes

I note that with this amendment is coupled amendment No. 6, standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Forest of Dean is an exemplar of many forests where the historic position of Crown land and Crown forests with all the rights of soc and coke, ingang feoff and outgang feoff have been exercised for centuries. Those rights are at the heart of the matter.
Crown woodlands are present in the New Forest South-East England conservancy, where there is perhaps the most extreme pressure of alternate land use and misuse. We have a Crown woodland in the Alice Holt, Hampshire, West Sussex, and Surrey—a forest of about 3,200 hectares. We have the Bedgebury forest, in Kent and East Sussex, of 3,900 hectares. There are 27,000 hectares in the New Forest, and approximately 3,400 acres in the Isle of Wight. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is in his place. I shall surprise him by telling him that that is the sort of woodland that amendment No. 6 seeks to exclude from these sales.

I take nothing away from the special pleading of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), in whose constituency lies the Forest of Dean, but there is a small group of forests and woodlands in England, Wales and Scotland which, by accident or design, contain Crown woods. The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that the Forestry Commission had given him verbal undertakings that they would not be high on any list of priorities, and would not be excluded.

We are not asking for something that the Forestry Commission wants to be excluded. We are asking that the undertakings given to the Parliamentary Secretary and relayed by him in Committee should be put into statutory form.

5.15 pm

I shall give a list of the woodlands that are involved. In Wales there are Beddgelert and Tintern. Anyone who knows North and South Wales knows that those are areas of particular beauty. If those woodlands which contain Crown woods were sold and eroded or destroyed by 179 inadequate planning control—there is nothing in the Bill to ensure adequate planning control—great tracts of beauty would be lost for ever.

In my part of the North-East we have Chopwell wood, near Tyneside, which is much used by the inhabitants of Tyne and Wear, Newcastle and Blaydon. In those woods there is a symbiosis between the woodland of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne and the Forestry Commission land of Chopwell. The two can exist only if they are run together. If the Forestry Commission sold off Chopwell, mischief would be done to the management and maintenance of the nearby woodlands of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.

In Cheshire we have Delamere. In the West of England, there is the Forest of Dean. In the South of England there is the New Forest, the Isle of Wight, Alice Holt, Bedgebury, and so on. In Scotland there is Inverliever—the only one there. All those woodlands contain Crown land. Why must we have this specific reservation? Between 1922 and 1927, a number of small parcels of woodland were transferred by the Crown to the Forestry Commission under restricted covenant.

As we said in Committee, the Forestry Commission accountants have a problem. If the land is sold the Forestry Commission has a highly specific liability to pay the original donors. Many of the woodlands were acquired under now obsolete legislation. A condition was that if they were sold the Forestry Commission would have to reimburse the original guarantee—in this case the Crown. If Crown woodlands are sold in the Forest of Dean, the New Forest or the Isle of Wight, the Treasury does not benefit. The proceeds have to be transferred to the Crown Commissioners.

By extending the Forest of Dean argument to all Crown estate woodlands we seek to protect some of our most beautiful woodlands

Ordnance Survey: Rural Mapping
HL Deb 24 April 1995 vol 563 cc698

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, in updating its rights of way mapping is it correct that Ordnance Survey no longer includes rights of way through Forestry Commission holdings? If it is true, why is that? Has it anything to do with the privatisation of the Forestry Commission?

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, Ordnance Survey shows rights of way on its maps based on information provided to it by the responsible local authorities. So if those rights of way through Forestry Commission grounds are not shown on Ordnance Survey maps it is because that information has not been provided by the local authorities

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1995/apr/24/ordnance-survey-rural-mapping#S5LV0563P0_19950424_HOL_29

*

HANSARD Failure of previous sell offs.

2011-02-01T05:28:00.000-08:00

Forestry Bill
HL Deb 11 May 1981 vol 420 cc35

Lord Kilmarnock……This amendment has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that further remarks might seem to be almost superfluous. However, there is one point of detail that I want to make. The Forestry Commission now allows the public to have access on foot to almost all the land which it owns. As part of this policy, the commission is now allowing the Ordnance Survey to mark Forestry Commission land on their maps.

I think it emerged during consideration of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill that walking in the countryside is easily the most popular of all outdoor recreations in this country. This struck me forcibly during the Committee stage debates on that Bill. The same point is relevant to this matter.

The particular case of the Forest of Dean is that, due to the long-standing legal argument to which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, referred, there is no definitive map of rights of way in the forest. The Ramblers' Association has waymarked a number of permissive paths through the forest, but if the land were to be sold off there is absolutely no guarantee that these or any other paths would remain open to the public.

To demonstrate our position, we shall support the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West in the Lobby on amendment No. 2.

Woodland (Public Access)
HC Deb 14 March 1983 vol 39 c27W 27W

§ Sir Paul Hawkins

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements have been made by the Forestry Commission in selling woodland owned by it to ensure that public access to such woodland is still permitted.

§ Mrs. Fenner

In selecting woodlands for sale, the Forestry Commission takes into account a number of guidelines which have been prescribed by the Forestry Ministers, including consideration of the extent to which the woodland is used for public access. It is hoped that purchasers will continue to allow reasonable public access especially where this has been enjoyed for a number of years. There can, however, be no question of the purchaser being required by a condition of sale to allow public access. Public rights of way are not affected by the transfer of a wood from the public to the private sector.

Forestry Commission
HC Deb 10 April 1986 vol 95 cc329-31

§ Mr. Greenway

Ramblers, walkers and horse riders from urban and rural areas fear that they will lose their rights of access to Forestry Commission land if they are privatised. Will my right hon. Friend undertake that such rights will not be lost if Forestry Commission land is privatised?

§ Mr. Jopling

Under the existing disposal arrangements, of which the House is aware and to which it has agreed, such matters are kept under careful review all the time.

The Forestry Commission
HL Deb 23 April 1986 vol 473 cc123

Lord Hunt ………………..

The first point derives from the supplementary question that I asked on 12th March following my noble friend's Starred Question on that occasion on the matter that we are discussing tonight. My question reflected the concern of conservation and amenity bodies about future prospects for public access and amenities in our forests once Forestry Commission land had passed into private ownership in accordance with Government instructions.

My question was necessarily brief and it is no reflection on the perspicacity of the noble Lord the Minister that he mistook what I was trying to get at. He thought that I was talking about public rights of way and of course he was able to assure the House that those are safeguards after transfer of land ownership and do not lapse on that account. In fact, my question was intended to find out how those privileges of public access and amenities—the kind of amenities referred to by my noble friend and so generously and imaginatively granted and developed in many of its forests by the Forestry Commission—had fared since 1981. During that time 100,000 hectares of Forestry Commission land have been sold under the terms of Section 1 of the Forestry Act 1981. I also wanted to know what was likely to happen to public access and amenities during the current year when a further 10,000 hectares, as I understand it, are to be disposed of in the same way.

Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the need to safeguard public interests had already been voiced 1243 five years previously. It was expressed most cogently and movingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, on 11th May 1981 when in Committee she moved an amendment to Clause 1 of the Forestry Bill. I shall quote her amendment which explains itself. It does not need to be put in context. The amendment read: (a) It shall be a condition of sale in any disposal"— that is, of Forestry Commission land— that existing access and amenity provisions shall be maintained".—[Official Report, 11/5/81; col. 332.] That amendment was cogently moved and received considerable support in Committee. In fact 78 of your Lordships voted for the amendment and 100 against. During the debate on that amendment I pointed out that we were legislating not for a matter of months ahead but for a number of years before any amending legislation could be expected.

We are now five years on since the Forestry Act became law and the need to safeguard the amenities and access has grown considerably. I think it was for that reason that on 12th June 1985 in Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill, which is now law, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, moved an amendment. It was designed to strengthen Clause 4 of that Bill which lays upon the Forestry Commission duties in regard to conservation. He, too, wanted to safeguard public access and amenities in that Bill which is now law.

The amendment was withdrawn by the noble Earl because of the urgent need to get the Bill onto the statute book and to prevent it falling because it was a Private Member's Bill. The record, which I have just read, shows that the noble Earl was less than satisfied with the assurances given by the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Skelmersdale. There was great urgency to get the Bill onto the statute book and the noble Earl withdrew his amendment.

Your Lordships will be aware that the Agriculture Bill, to which the noble Baroness has just referred, which is shortly to come to your Lordships' House, contains no reference to forestry. The matter was raised in Committee in another place on 28th January 1986 when Mr. Home Robertson pointed out: When land leaves the hands of the Forestry Commission the Government lose control over any activities on it". Against that background, I have some questions for the Minister. I shall phrase them in two ways. Is it still true to say, as was stated by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, during the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, to the Forestry Bill in 1981 that, If the Forestry Commission decides that public access is important, then it will not sell the area at all, but it will have a sale and lease-back, and in that way all amenities can be preserved"? The noble Earl said: That is an important safeguard".—[Official Report, 11/5/81; col. 339.] We will all agree with that.

§ Lord Gray of Contin

I shall put my question in another way. Has that been the case during the past five years? In other words, has the Forestry Commission in fact withheld land from sale to safeguard public access and amenities? As a corollary will it continue to hold it under the Government's present policy of selling more 1244 land in the current year and in the future?

That is my first point.

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, I propose to deal with those points in due course. I will try to answer some of the questions that were raised and I assure my noble friend that I will return to the matter that he has mentioned……………………….

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also asked me a number of questions. I am sorry if I misunderstood his point on a previous occasion, and I hope I shall be able to give him the proper answer tonight. He asked me whether in the last five years the Forestry Commission had withheld sales to safeguard access. The answer is yes, the Forestry Commission has withheld properties from the market which otherwise would be eligible for sale under the rationalisation approach because of the heavy investment in recreational and public access facilities.

The noble Lord also asked me about the situation of properties for sale in consideration of public access. I have partially answered that question, but there is a further point. The selection of properties for sale within the overall policy laid down by the Government is a matter for the Forestry Commission. The commissioners have absolute control of this. The disposal programme is carried out entirely by the commissioners. They decide what properties they shall dispose of and the Government do not take an active part in that selection.

The Action for the Countryside
HC Deb 26 June 1992 vol 210 cc492-

Ramblers Association has raised with me the issue of the sale of Forestry Commission land and the loss of public access involved in that. Between 1981 and 1989, 140,000 hectares of land were sold and access was lost to many rights of way which had previously been open to the general public. In 1989 it was announced that the Forestry Commission should aim to sell a further 100,000 hectares by the year 2000.

The Government recognised the need to do something about the loss of access, so they set up a scheme which allowed local authorities to negotiate access agreements with the Forestry Commission before it sold land. Unfortunately, it is not a statutory requirement on local authorities. Because of the extra financial costs involved at a time of acute financial difficulties for councils, such as poll tax and council tax capping, few agreements have been brought to fruition. I believe that there is one access agreement now and a further 14 being negotiated. In Wales, for example, 40 access agreements have been offered on Forestry Commission land, but only three taken up. That is a serious problem which my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) tried to put right in the previous Parliamcommission's forests were popular recreation areas. He 550 specified the Gwydwr forests around Betws-y-Coed in Snowdonia, Cannock Chase in Staffordshire, Thetford forest in East Anglia, Dalby forest in North Yorkshire and the Queen Elizabeth forest park near Loch Lomond. In addition, the Forestry Commission manages the New forest in Hampshire.

My hon. Friend said that there were examples of woods that had been sold by the commission and had resulted in a loss of public access. Pen wood, south of Yeovil in Somerset was sold in 1983, since when the car park and picnic sites have been closed, the entrance to the wood locked, and notices erected forbidding the public to enter.

Unfortunately, the Government did not agree with my hon. Friend's attempts to allow freedom of access to forests. Given the Minister's keenness to provide access, I hope that he will be prepared to reconsider the matter. He should be particularly eager, bearing in mind the problems of access that exist in other parts of the country, such as the Peak district and my home territory of Brecon Beacons national park where from a distance one can see huge brown swathes of the countryside where people, anxious to enjoy the environment, have gone for walks and simply walked away the grass. I believe that if there were more access points to the countryside, the pressure would be taken off the most popular districts. I hope that the Minister will reconsider.

The Forestry Industry
HL Deb 14 April 1993 vol 544 cc1110

Baroness Nicol …..

The report from the Select Committee in another place, which was published on 10th March this year, stresses the importance of involving local communities in developing new forests and managing existing ones. Do the Government support that approach? The environmental and recreational benefits of forestry, as many of us have said, are as important as the economic benefits. The German approach to managing forests in the interests of all aspects is well known. Given the will, there is no reason why we could not do as well.

The record on public access to previous Forestry Commission holdings so far is abysmal. Only one access agreement has been signed since the new legislation came into force in 1991. It must become firm policy that access to previously held Forestry Commission land must be maintained and the only way to do that is by establishing rights of way. I know that that is not a popular suggestion, but it is the only certain way under our present laws to keep access safe for the public.

C Deb 26 October 1993 vol 230 cc561-2W 561W

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give, for each of those forest areas in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Humberside currently for sale to the private sector, details of (a) how rights of public access will be maintained, (b) how the environmental code for forestry enterprise will be enforced, (c) what charges she will allow for access, (d) how many people are currently employed on these forests, (e) what percentage it is of the Forestry Commission's land in each county (i) in 1980 and (ii) at present and (f) what were the criteria for selection for privatisation.

§ Mr. Jack

The areas of forest land currently being offered for sale by the Forestry Commission in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Humberside are shown in the table.

Area (hectares)

Lincolnshire 1

Yorkshire
Cannon Park Estate 194
Gateforth East 27
Gateforth West 47
Hayton Wood 51
Hazelhead Wood 94
Hazelwood 56

562W

Area (hectares)

Howsham Wood 81

Humberside

Greenwickdale 44
1 =None.

a. Access to Forestry Commission woodlands can be either by means of public rights of way or by permission. Public rights of way will not be affected by a change of ownership. Arrangements for securing continued permissive public access to Forestry Commission woodlands after sale, through prior agreements entered into between the Commission and local authorities, were introduced in October 1991. Of the forest areas listed above, access agreements have been concluded under these arrangements for Gateforth East, Hayton Wood and Hazelwood, and an agreement is currently being negotiated for Hazelhead Wood.

b. The Environmental Code was drawn up specifically in relation to the management of the Commission's woodlands by its Forest Enterprise arm. Private woodland owners participating in the Woodland Grant Scheme are required to follow environmental guidelines published by the Forestry Commission. Grants are withheld if the guidelines are not followed.

c. No charges are allowed for public access under the agreements described at a. above.

d. These are small woodlands which do not have any staff assigned to them on a regular basis.

e. The areas of forest land currently for sale in Yorkshire amount to about 2 per cent. of the total woodland area managed by the Forestry Commission in the county, both in 1980 and in 1993. The one area for sale in Humberside represents about 8 per cent. of the total woodland area managed in 1980 and about 12 per cent. of the current area.

f. The main considerations to be taken into account in selecting properties for disposal were set out in 1981 by the then Secretary of State for Scotland in a letter to the Chairman of the Commission. That letter is reproduced at Appendix V to the Commission's 1981–82 Annual Report, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

§ Mr. Bayley

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list all the pieces of Forestry Commission land in Yorkshire which have been sold in the last 10 years; and if she will list for each sale(a) the name of the forest or piece of land, (b) its area in acres, (c) the sale price, (d) the name and address of the purchaser and (e) whether the current owner provides a public right of access to the land.

§ Mr. Jack

Details of the areas of forest land sold by the Forestry Commission in each county, from the start of the disposals programme in July 1981 to December 1992, are given in lists held in the Library of the House. For all sales since June 1985 the commission has sought permission from the purchasers to disclose their names and the prices paid; where such permission has been given these details are included in the lists.

Information about the sale of other categories of land, such as agricultural land, houses and gardens, is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
The Government retain no direct interest in land which has been sold by the commission, so no official records have been collected on the provision of public access by the new owners. Public rights of way will not, however, be affected by a change of ownership.

FORESTRY COMMISSION: SALE OF WOODLANDS
HL Deb 26 October 1993 vol

§ Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

In how many cases where woods have been sold, has a previous right of public access been extinguished.

§ Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

The Government retain no direct interest in woodlands after their sale by the Forestry Commission. No official statistics on the provision of access by the new owners have therefore been collected. Rights of way will not, of course, have been affected by the changes of ownership.
We are concerned, however, that the general public should continue to enjoy access to woodlands sold by the Commission. We therefore introduced arrangements in October 1991 for securing continued public access to such woodlands after sale, by means of prior agreements entered into between the Commission and local authorities. Access agreements have now been completed or are nearing completion for over 30 woodlands which are in the process of being sold, and local authorities have expressed interest in negotiating an agreement in nearly 50 further cases. These arrangements are now being reviewed in consultation with the countryside agencies, the local authority associations and other interested bodies.

Forestry, Cornwall
HC Deb 11 January 1994 vol 235 c52W 52W

§ Mr. Tyler

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list all the plantations at present owned by the Forestry Commission in Cornwall, and those disposed of within the last 10 years giving, in each case, their acreage and the extent of public access, indicating which are included in the current disposals programme and setting out her plans to ensure no future erosion of rights of access.

§ Mr. Jack

The Forestry Commission manages 3,290 hectares of woodland in Cornwall. The commission is preparing a list of the individual woods and I shall send a copy to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Lists giving details of the areas of forest land sold by the Forestry Commission from the start of the disposals programme in July 1981 to December 1992 are held in the Library of the House. The commission is compiling a list of the areas sold in 1993 and a copy will be placed in the Library when this is completed.

The Commission does not maintain detailed records of the extent of public access to individual woods.

The areas of forest land in Cornwall that the commission is currently offering for sale on the open market are as follows:

Name
Area (hectares)
Croft Pascoe 45
Hay Wood 54
Penance and Derrys 7
Port Elliot Estate 108
Prideaux 24
Treworgey 17
Wheal Par 5

Rights of way over commission land are unaffected by a change of ownership. In addition, arrangements for securing continued public access to former Forestry Commission woodlands after sale, by way of prior agreements entered into between the commission and local authorities, have been in place since October 1991. These arrangements are currently being reviewed.

*

HANSARD 1966 Bridleways

2011-02-01T05:07:00.000-08:00

Bridleways

HC Deb 07 March 1966 vol 725 c407W 407W

§ Mr. Dodds-Parker

asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether, in the light of the views expressed in paragraph 47 of Command Paper No. 2928, dealing with leisure in the countryside, he will, by legislation or otherwise, take steps to ensure that the Forestry Commission assist in the provision of many special bridle ways, and cease their present practice of discouraging the use of their land by riders through imposing a special charge per horse.

§ Mr. Willey

The hon. Member will see in paragraph 54 of Command Paper No. 2928 that the Forestry Commission is opening its forests to the public as freely as possible. The creation of new footpaths and bridleways is set out in paragraph 47 of the Paper as something requiring further consultation and investigation. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Forestry Commission to stop their practice of making a modest charge to regular riders over their land. These charges are part of the normal management of their estate, and it is reasonable that they should obtain some return for special facilities of this kind.

*

HANSARD 1966 HORSE- RIDING CHARGES

2011-02-01T05:02:00.000-08:00

FORESTRY COMMISSION'S HORSE- RIDING CHARGES
HL Deb 16 February 1966 vol 272 cc1043-5 1043
§ 2.15 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:

§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how much money the Forestry Commission expect to receive each year from the £4 charge per horse per annum from organised commercial riding establishments and from the £2 charge per annum from regular riders; what is the cost of collecting the above charges; and whether to their knowledge any private individuals or bodies have imposed such charges.]

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government really think 1044 it worth while that the Forestry Commission should incur a certain amount of odium, and act as a bad precedent to private landlords, by imposing a charge that brings in what is, comparatively speaking, a negligible amount of money? Further, do the Government not agree that, on the whole, the damage is done by the unorganised riders (if that is the right description) and not by the organised riders, who always have leaders well versed in the countryside code?

§ LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, we considered this matter in reply to a Question from the noble Duke on July 22, and I believe these points were raised then. I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what was said then. I think that in the circumstances this is a reasonable charge. It is made not for casual riding but, as regards the larger charge, to people who are making a quite proper commercial use of forest facilities, and, as regards the smaller charge, to those who frequent the forests regularly for riding during a year.

§ LORD AMULREE

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell me why the Forestry Commissioners have suddenly, as I understand, decided to put this charge on the riding schools.

§ LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I regret that I am not acquainted with the reasons for any change of policy about this matter— indeed, I did not know there had been one. All I can say is that, as matters now stand, it seems to me a reasonable charge to make for these uses of the forests, and a proper one for a public authority to make.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, may I ask the Government whether any people have refused to pay these charges; and, if so, whether interdicts have been applied for against them, and what has been the cost of the interdicts?

§ LORD MITCHISON

Not to my knowledge, my Lords. All I can say is that, having regard to what the noble Lord said on the last occasion this matter arose, I made the most careful inquiries about the law of Scotland (of which I am wholly ignorant) and was unable to discover that anybody was breaking it in this respect.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that one 1045 pony-trekking operator would have to pay something like 80 landlords if all private landlords emulated the Forestry Commission in this respect? Does he really think this is the way to encourage people to make recreational use of public facilities?

§ LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I can only repeat that these matters were raised before, and that I have nothing to add to the answers I then made. I think the charge is a reasonable and proper one in all the circumstances. I am sorry that the noble Duke thinks the charge is too small, but I do not think he wishes me to suggest that it should be increased.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, would the noble Lord make inquiries about my question as to whether anybody has refused to pay, and whether any interdicts have been applied for against them? If he would let me know afterwards, that would be quite sufficient, but I should like to know.

§ LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I will certainly check and let the noble Lord know, but I did make inquiries about the law and I am sure that, if there had been a case on the matter, I should have been told about it.

LORD REA

My Lords, the noble Lord said that he had nothing to add on this matter. Can he hold out any hopes of a subtraction?

§ LORD MITCHISON

No, my Lords.

*

HANSARD 1965 EQUESTRIAN CHARGES

2011-02-01T05:00:00.000-08:00

Forestry Commission (Equestrian Charges)
HC Deb 04 August 1965 vol 717 cc369-70W 369W
§ Mr. Marten
asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what are the current annual receipts of the Forestry Fund on account of charges made by the Commission to those riding horses or ponies over their land; and whether he will instruct the Commission to cease to levy this toll, which is not imposed in similar circumstances in respect of public parks and mostly privately owned land.
§ Mr. Willey
Since it was only in May of this year that the Forestry Commission decided to levy their current charges on commercial users (to which I assume the hon. Member refers) this information is not yet available. Previously the Commission made a small annual charge in some cases to regular riders over their land; these amounts were not recorded separately and it would not be possible to ascertain the annual figure without a disproportionate amount of work.
370W
I see no reason to instruct the Commission to discontinue these charges, which are made in the ordinary course of managing their estate, since it is only reasonable that they should obtain some return when they allow facilities of this kind.
Back to Water Storage Facilities
Forward to MINISTRY OF POWER

HANSARD 1965 HORSE-RIDING FEES

2011-02-01T04:54:00.000-08:00

FORESTRY COMMISSION HORSE-RIDING FEES

HL Deb 22 July 1965 vol 268 cc892-5 892
§ 3.17 p.m.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:

§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the recent decision by the Forestry Commission to make a charge of £4 per horse per annum, to those who wish to make commercial use of the Commission's land for horse-riding, is within the powers of the Commission under section 4(6) of the Forestry Act 1945, or under any other statutory provision; and whether this decision has been made as the result of a direction given to them by the relevant Minister.]

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON)

My Lords, the decision to make an annual charge of £4 per horse for the use of Forestry Commission land to organisations such as riding schools was taken in the course of the Commission's normal management of their estate, in accordance with Section 4(6) and Section 4(7)(b) of the Forestry Act, 1945. The resulting income is paid into the Forestry Fund in accordance with Section 6(3) of the same Act.

The decision was not made under a direction given to the Commission by my right honourable friends; and I suggest that it is not inconsistent with the Commission's policy of encouraging public access to their forests to charge a fee to any person or organisation making commercial use of their land for riding or any other form of recreation. I hope that the noble Duke will agree that it is only equitable that, where the Commission's facilities are used to the profit of a third party, the Commission should expect a reasonable return.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that 893 Answer, do I gather that, henceforward, it is going to be the policy of public Commissions to make charges for such things as riding through their land? Do I further gather that the Government are going to encourage this; and would they not agree that this will tend to remove these forms of activity from the pockets of the vast majority of the people of this country? Because at the moment pony-trekking is not a paying proposition.

§ LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, as the Question indicated, this charge is made only in respect of the commercial use of the Forestry Commission's land. There is no charge for occasional riding; and regular riders can get a permit for a fee of £2 a year. I do not think that this is extortionate.

§ LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, in the light of the original Answer given by the noble Lord, will he give an assurance that the Government can see the wood for the trees?

§ LORD MITCHISON

Yes, my Lords; without any difficulty.

LORD REA

My Lords, could the Minister say whether donkeys and motor-scooters are free?

§ LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I am afraid that I have no information either about donkeys or about motor-scooters, but I will gladly inquire if the noble Lord asserts afterwards that he would like to know.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, the first part of the noble Lord's answer dealt with the question of commercial use; and later he mentioned a £2 fee for ordinary riders. That is a completely new one on those people who regularly use Tilgate and St. Leonard's Forests and other forests for recreational purposes as ordinary riders. Is this intended to apply all over England?

§ LORD MITCHISON

What I understand to be the case is that the occasional user is not charged; but if someone uses Commission land regularly he can get leave to do so for £2 a year. I feel sure that the noble Lord would think it right that a small charge of that sort should be made, given that it is, after all, Forestry Commission land and public land.
894

§ LORD MOYNE

My Lords, would the noble Lord give an assurance that no charge would be made, however regular the use, when the riding was on a public bridle path which happens to cross Forestry Commission land?

§ LORD MITCHISON

Not without notice, my Lords.

§ LORD DERWENT

My Lords, would the noble Lord say that the Government would approve if private landlords did the same thing?

§ LORD SHEPHERD

Private landlords do so.

§ LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I wish some of them would.

§ LORD DERWENT

Why?

§ LORD MITCHISON

Because it would be to the advantage of the public who, in those circumstances, would be able to ride on land or at places where perhaps they may not be so allowed at the moment.

NOBLE LORDS

They are allowed to do so.

§ LORD DERWENT

My Lords, anyone can ride over my land, provided he does so without damaging the crops. Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that we should start charging?

§ LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, the noble Lord is a very public-spirited person. I am glad that he has told us that we may ride over his land provided we do not damage the crops.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that heretofore the Forestry Commission have given almost unlimited access to riders anywhere in Scotland, and does he really think that making a charge of £4 a horse will encourage the use of the land for recreational purposes, as apparently is the Government's policy?

§ LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I do not think it will discourage it. I think it is reasonable that a small charge should be made to someone who is making a profit out of letting out horses or organising expeditions of pony riders over Forestry Commission land. It is a matter for the Forestry Commission themselves; it is a matter of management. 895 I feel sure that the noble Duke himself will feel that allowing the use of land in this way for horses which are let out on hire is an ordinary question of estate management and ought to be left to the Forestry Commission.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, we have a lot of Business to deal with to-day. I know that this is a very important subject, but perhaps we could have it down for another day.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, may I ask one question? I am anxious that the noble Lord should clear it up. May I hope that what he has said applies only to England and Wales?—because in Scotland his answer would be contrary to Common Law; and therefore the matter is of some importance.

§ LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, I should hesitate to venture an opinion on Scottish law; but my answer was applicable to all three countries, England, Scotland and Wales, each of which has a Forestry Minister.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, do the Government really mean to invade the ordinary Common Law rights of the Scottish people for the sake of the Forestry Commission?

§ LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, Scottish rights are not being invaded.

*

HANSARD 1963 HORSE RIDING

2011-02-01T04:13:00.000-08:00

FORESTRY COMMISSION AND HORSE RIDING
HL Deb 02 July 1963 vol 251 cc645-7 645

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the policy of the Forestry Commission to debar persons on horses access to the roads through their woodlands, and, if so, why.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD)

My Lords, it is the Forestry Commission's policy to allow access to their woodlands by persons on foot or mounted, except where there are good reasons to restrict such access. For example, they may have to restrict access when there is a high fire risk or where it would prejudice the interests of lessors, neighbours or tenants. Unfortunately, it is also sometimes necessary to restrict riding in forests where grass roads, made for timber extraction, may suffer serious damage in wet weather.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Is the noble Lord aware that horses cannot possibly cause the same damage as heavy tractors on grass rides? Is he also aware that people on horses do not usually smoke. And, further, as riding has now become far more popular owing to the overcrowding on the motor roads, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will intimate to the Forestry Commission that in future they should take a more enlightened view of people on horses riding through their woodlands?

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I know of absolutely nothing that prevents horsemen from smoking while riding; nor do I know of anything that prevents them from "lighting up" when alight- 646 ing from their horses, to give either themselves or their horses a rest. Furthermore, my noble friend is wrong in suggesting that horses cannot damage wet grass roads so as to prevent heavy lorries from operating on those roads or to become bogged in them.

§ LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, will the noble Lord give some indication as to how widespread these restrictions are, and whether they are applied specifically to horsemen but not to people on foot?

LORD ST. OSWALD

No, my Lords, they are certainly not restrictions permanently applied. So far as I know, they are restrictions brought in according to the state of the weather and, therefore, according to the damage which the weather plus people represent to the forests in one way or another, in respect to either fire or damaging roads and making it impossible to extract timber. Generally speaking—I am not sure that I can say "exclusively"—when restriction is put on in a certain season of the year it is put on for everybody either on horse or on foot.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in certain forests I know which are owned by the Commission they do bar access to horses all the year round, but not to pedestrians?

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I do not know how many forests my noble friend owns, but, knowing something of his squirearchal responsibilities in Kent, I inquired whether anything was known of any difficulties in Kingswood. I was told that no such difficulties had been reported to the Forestry Commission in that area.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in Kingswood, covering an area of about 2,000 acres, all roads have notices up saying "No horses"?

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, clearly I was not aware of that; but I wonder if my noble friend happens to know whether these are permanent notices or temporary notices the necessity for which I tried to describe in my substantive Answer.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

They are permanent.
647

§ LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, would the noble Lord now like to correct his statement that these restrictions are applied equally to men on foot or on horseback?

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I think it is the view of my noble friend that they are not applied to all and sundry, but I should like to look into it. It may be that restrictions are imposed with respect to grass roads and the damage to grass roads in wet weather from horses. I would say that this was a possibility.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords—if your Lordships will excuse my intervening again—some of these roads are tarmac roads.

*