NFA NEWS

NFA calls for review of high speed off-road cycling events in the New Forest

The New Forest Association is asking for a review of high-speed, off-road cycling events in the New Forest following concerns about the management of some events and their potential damaging effects on the Forest.

The NFA is making a presentment to the Verderers' Court today (January 18th) calling for their support in initiating a review.

The NFA is asking for the New Forest National Park Authority to review the management of recreation in the forest, the rationale for off-road cycling, the success of existing cycle routes, systems for managing and policing off-road cycling events, and how to plan for maximum enjoyment of the Forest with minimal damage.

Peter Roberts, NFA Chairman, says that the new cycle routes suggested in the National Park Authority's Recreational Management Strategy may be premature.

"It is time to take stock," he said. "We need to think seriously about recreational management in the New Forest and what has been successful or unsuccessful so far. Cycling is beneficial to health and a wonderful way to enjoy the Forest but we need to consider the best way for more visitors to enjoy the Forest without destroying the very thing they have come to enjoy.

"We support responsible cycling both on and off road within the New Forest and recognise that it will grow. But there are other forests that are better suited and more appropriate to high-speed mass cycling events."

See separate news item below for full text of the presentment.

The New Forest Association, formed in 1867, is a charitable organisation which has over 140 years of experience in working to preserve, conserve and protect the New Forest. It was formed at a time when Government measures threatened to sell off the New Forest in the middle of the 19th century. The Association is dedicated to the preservation, conservation and protection of the New Forest and is a membership-based organization. Further information can be found at www.newforestassociation.org.

If you would like to interview Peter Roberts, please contact him on 01725 514480 or contact Lindsey Darking on 07775 891715; email lindsey@impactwriters.co.uk

Close Article     |     Top of Page

The New Forest Association supports responsible cycling both on and off road within the New Forest and recognises it will grow. But the situation is not satisfactory and getting worse and NFA echoes the concerns made by the Commoners Defence Association at the November Court.

We have come across a cycle sport event taking place at least in part on Forest gravel tracks in April, which the website promotes by suggesting that cyclists 'will want to set a good time as they blast around this flowing course.'1 Is this how we want the Forest used? Is it the form of recreation that should be endorsed by the Commission and Park Authority?

The Verderers are to be congratulated for doing their own research into future recreational events and in their flexibility into avoiding a conflict in October by rearranging drift days. But is this their responsibly? Are these the right priorities?

The New Forest is not getting any bigger, but year by year demand for recreation increases and will continue to increase. When will the Commission and National Park Authority accept this truth and start dealing will the increasing conflicts?

New cycle routes have been suggested in the National Park Authority's Recreational Management Strategy.2

NFA contends this is premature - it is time to take stock. What are we trying to achieve? What have been the successes of the existing off road routes? What have been the failures and how can these be addressed? Is the limited space in the Forest being used efficiently? Is this open access area being afforded sufficient protection? What is the best way for more and more visitors to enjoy the Forest without destroying the very thing they have come to enjoy? Do the Commission have both the resources and will to manage and police this increased recreation? How can the increasing conflict, the subject of numerous presentments in this Court be avoided?

NFA urge the Verderers to seek from the Commission a review covering the management of recreation, the rationale of off road cycling, the success or otherwise of existing routes, an effective system of event management and policing, and suitable planning tools that will allow us to welcome ever more visitors with minimum damage to the environment and traditions of the precious and unique New Forest.

Notes

The Association regards the lawful use of cycling not only as beneficial to health but as a means to appreciate the wonderful wildlife and scenery that the New Forest offers. There are other forests with off-road tracks that are much better suited and appropriate for high speed mass cycling events. We ask that cyclists and those supporting cycling in the new Forest show consideration and respect for other users and work to protect and enhance the area that they value so much for their recreation.

1 http://www.ukcyclingevents.co.uk/events/wiggle-new-forest-spring-mtb-ride-2012/
2 Recreational Management Strategy, NFNPA 2010, p 51

Close Article     |     Top of Page

In his 5th August 2011 "New Forest Notes" column in the Lymington Times, Anthony Pasmore took exception to the New Forest Association's submission to the Independent Panel on Forestry. His interpretation patently ignores our defence of the New Forest Acts, our praise for the good side of the Forestry Commission, and insinuates a non-existent "bias in favour of replacing state control"

Our Chairman has written a letter to the Lymington Times in rebuttal:

9th August 2011

Dear Sir

It is good to see that Anthony Pasmore has taken up the challenge to open a debate on the New Forest Association's views to the Forestry Panel (NF Notes 6th August). Whilst the headline of our Press Release captured the attention of the media it is the detail of what we are actually looking for that is important.

The aims of the Association are simple:- to protect, conserve and enhance the unique mix of flora, fauna and heritage that make up the New Forest, for present and future generations to enjoy. Clearly over a long history (we are more than fifty years older than the Forestry Commission) we have had many dealings with management policy. Our response to the Independent Panel on Forestry recognises the good work done by excellent staff of the Forestry Commission. Our aim is to obtain the best possible management for this unique area, we are far more interested in how the Forest is managed than who manages it.

Five years ago we published The New Forest Design Plan - Recovering Lost Landscapes to influence management thinking and correct some of the damage done by inappropriate planting. Inappropriate because softwood species are not native and can be grown more successfully elsewhere and inappropriate because of the loss of part of the largest lowland heathland in Europe - an internationally recognised and protected area. Few people now remember the damage done by conversion of many of the old inclosures from broad-leaved trees to conifer from the instigation of the Forestry Commission in 1924 until the outcry of 1970. Your columnist should remember, for he, alongside David Stagg and John Lavender, produced an excellent survey of the hardwoods at that time on behalf of the New Forest Association.

We have linked our response to the work of Sir John Lawton, whose committee produced a report Making Space for Nature last autumn. This fundamental rethink on how we can best use land for nature conservation (not for its own sake alone but because our own future is closely linked with wildlife) is an opportunity to seize.

As for Anthony's concerns for the New Forest Acts none know their value better than the New Forest Association for our founding fathers' decade of work led to the 1877 Act. We explicitly quote the New Forest Acts in our response stating that they and the Verderers activities should continue 'regardless of who in future is responsible for managing the New Forest.'

Anthony's comments on current ownership explain why we used the phrasing we did. Our submission talks of the Crown Estate of the New Forest to remind the Forestry Panel that it consists not just of the lands open to the public but also vital back-up grazing as well as considerable housing stock. The latter has provided a core of commoners housing for a considerable time to the benefit of the New Forest. We believe it is essential that all this should remain as a unit and not be sold off.

Our views to the Forestry Panel stated that the New Forest should be treated as a special case. We also believe in a balance between conservation, recreation and a working environment and that this view is shared by other bodies including the Commoners Defence Association and the National Park Authority. Removing national forestry policy from the Forestry Commission in the New Forest may provide the best possible way forward for management of this unique area. Whatever system of management is put in place it will need to take account of nature designations and public access as well as commoners usage for the benefit of the nation. It seems likely that this balance will only be achieved at a considerable cost to the public purse.

Our full submission may be found at newforestassociation.org

Yours sincerely

(Note: the version published in the Lymington Times, may have been edited for space or content.)

Close Article     |     Top of Page

The New Forest Association asks that the Verderers consider supporting the response of this Association when they respond to the Independent Panel on Forestry. Our submission is detailed so I will just highlight six points.

1. The New Forest Crown Estate should be kept intact because the back-up land and cottages are vital to commoning.
2. Remove intensive commercial forestry because the plantations sterilise bio-diversity. A return to broad leaved woodlands in some areas would reverse this. It would probably take 50-60 years to harvest existing plantations thereby allowing the timber extraction industry to adapt to the changes.
3. Replace Forestry Commission with landscape managers. It is difficult for the Commission to adhere to national policy whilst attempting to manage a unique area in an appropriate manner.
4. Retention of local expertise in any new body is vital because many Commission staff have great local knowledge.
5. The New Forest could be the basis of an Ecological Restoration Zone thereby fulfilling needs recognised in the Lawton report 'Making Space for Nature' and the recent Government White Paper.
6. Last but not least the retention of the New Forest Acts is of fundamental importance.

How the Forest is cared for matters more than who cares for it.

Close Article     |     Top of Page

The New Forest Association has called for the Forestry Commission to be replaced in the New Forest and for the Forest's conifer plantations to be phased out in favour of traditional broadleaved forest.

The 144-year-old Association, which aims to champion, protect and conserve the unique heritage and ecology of the New Forest, has made the radical suggestions in its written submission to the Independent Panel on Forestry this month (July 2011).

Over the last 200 years, says the NFA, large conifer plantations used for intensive commercial forestry have reduced the beauty and biodiversity of much of the New Forest, rendering it "sterile". In order to repair this damage, the historic broadleaved woodlands of the Forest should be allowed to develop naturally, providing sustainable products for the local economy.

The NFA also suggests retaining state ownership of the New Forest under new landscape managers, bound by the requirement to protect its unique status.

"Management of the New Forest by the Forestry Commission is merely an accident of history," says the submission. "The Forest owes its unique character and survival to the commoners grazing their stock which has brought about the open heaths, lawns, pasture woodlands and wetlands we see today. The conflicts with timber growers are legion and go back centuries. There is a case for easing the burden on the Forestry Commission by removing them from the area totally."

The NFA argues that the New Forest is of exceptional importance for biodiversity and should be designated as one of the proposed Ecological Restoration Zones outlined in the Lawton report last year. This report, commissioned by DEFRA, concluded that England's wildlife sites were too small and too isolated, leading to a decline in traditional species which would only get worse through the effects of climate change.

With its 20 sites of Special Scientific Interest, six Natura 2000 sites, two Ramsar Convention sites, many rare species and unusual mix of habitats and wildlife, the New Forest National Park area should be considered as a special case for conservation and should be protected from further mismanagement or decline, says the NFA.

The NFA also calls for the whole of the Crown Estate land to be protected, including the back up land and cottages which are so vital to commoning, and for the expertise of local Forestry Commission specialists to be retained in any new structure. The New Forest Acts of 1877 to 1970, which give the Verderers responsibility for the management of the Open Forest and the commoners' grazing system, should also be retained, it says.

Peter Roberts, NFA Chairman, said that continuing management of the New Forest for softwoods is inappropriate, given the outstanding value of the area both for wildlife and for people.

"The New Forest has enormous potential for increasing its biodiversity and landscape beauty, as well as its value for recreation," he said. "At present, many of its habitats are in poor condition as a result of mismanagement in previous decades. There is an urgent need for habitat restoration, to address this problem.

"Although the Forestry Commission's management of the Open Forest heathland has been carried out well in recent years, restoration is held back by the subsidised forestry culture and by the large swathes of conifer planting, which fragment internationally rare habitats, introduce diseases and damage the archaeology of the New Forest.

"No further establishment of non-native trees should occur in the New Forest and non-native plantations should be returned to native woodlands. There are enough soft woods to supply the local timber industry for the next fifty or sixty years already, without the need for further plantings. A return to more broad-leaved plantations would increase the beauty of the New Forest, would help species to diversify and would also help local businesses," he said.

For the full text (pdf) of the response sent by the NFA to the Independent Panel on Forestry click here.

Close Article     |     Top of Page

After the government climb-down on the proposed sale of public woodlands on February 17th 2011, an Independent Panel on Forestry was established on 17 March 2011 to advise government on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England. The Panel's terms of reference state:

1. To advise the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England.
2. To advise on the role of the Forestry Commission in implementing policy on forestry and woodland in relation to England.
3. In formulating this advice, the Panel should consider:
   
   1. how woodland cover can be increased, given competing pressures on land use for food production, energy and development;
   2. options for enhancing public benefits from all woodland and forests, in the light of the Lawton Report and the Natural Environment White Paper, including:
   • public access for recreation and leisure;
   • biodiversity, wildlife protection and ecological resilience, including through restoration of open habitats and plantations on ancient woodland sites;
   • climate change mitigation and adaptation
   • economic development, particularly to support a sustainable timber industry and a wide range of small and medium sized enterprises, including social enterprises; and
   • engagement and participation of civil society.
   3. constraints and competing demands on public expenditure for this Spending Review period and beyond;
   4. the role of Forest Enterprise England as the manager of productive forestry resources;
   5. the value for money and cost-effectiveness of the public forest estate in England and options for its future ownership and management.
4. In formulating its advice to the Secretary of State, the Panel will be expected to engage and take evidence from the widest range of views and interest.
5. The Panel will report to the Secretary of State in the autumn of 2011.

Today the NFA have issued its response to the Panel. The response calls for the New Forest to remain in public hands, a hands-off approach to the existing New Forest Acts and the cessation of commercial forestry in the New Forest. For the full text (pdf) of the response sent by the NFA to the Independent Panel on Forestry, including the answers to the above questions, and addenda click here.

Submissions to the panel must be in by 31st July 2011. The Panel's findings and advice will be presented in a final report in April 2012. More on the Independent Panel on Forestry may be found on its home page: http://www.defra.gov.uk/forestrypanel.

Close Article     |     Top of Page

The New Forest Association is delighted to announce the election of Peter Roberts as its new Chairman.

A former Amenity Verderer, Peter has been involved with the Association for more than twenty years. He has taken lead roles in the New Forest CPRE as well as being a past President of the Hampshire Field Club. He represents the NFA at both local level on the Consultative Panel, and also nationally for the Campaign for National Parks as a council member.

An orienteer, cyclist and runner (he recently completed a 26 mile charity walk for Wiltshire Wildlife - the Sarsen Trail), Peter is committed to developing the NFA's strength as a major force for conservation and protection. He believes that his task is to help create the conditions for the organisation to bring the message of the importance and fragility of the New Forest to a new generation. 'We must embrace modern technology in ensuring that our successors understand that the pressures on the New Forest are greater than ever and cannot continue without unacceptable further erosion.'

No stranger to campaigning, Peter, alongside outgoing Chairman, William Ziegler, most recently played a major part in the NFA's successful campaign to thwart the coalition government's unworkable Forest Estate sell-off plans.

A keen local historian he has written a number of specialist books and articles on the Forest and was responsible, with Richard Reeves, for the publication of five volumes in the New Forest Record Series published by the New Forest Centre.

Peter's wide life experience includes owning and managing an electrical retail business in Hythe before turning to recycling - running a second-hand bookshop at Ashurst for ten years with his partner Georgina Babey. An enthusiastic user of the Forest he is also a keen photographer, often combining history, wildlife and the Forest into a day's walk.

John Ward has been elected vice-chairman.

Close Article     |     Top of Page

The New Forest Association has voiced strong opposition to a proposed coastal development at Thorns Beach near Beaulieu in a formal letter to the National Park Authority.

The NFA has serious concerns about the threat to protected coastal land at Thorns Beach and surrounding areas and is also worried about the precedent that could be set if the development goes ahead.

The planning application, made by Jim Ratcliffe, CEO of Ineos, includes the proposed development of a new dwelling, boathouse, ancillary accommodation and sun house at Thorns Beach, replacing a summer house.

"We have a very good working relationship with Ineos and have welcomed the business opportunities and benefits that the company has brought to the New Forest," said New Forest Association Planning Committee Chair Peter Roberts.

"However, this proposal for a private dwelling is an intrusion in an unspoilt and protected area of coastal development. Most of the north Solent shoreline is designated as a Special Protection Area and/or Special Area of Conservation under European Directives, and is subject to the Habitats Regulations 1994.

"Our role in the NFA is to protect and preserve all that is good and unique in the New Forest, securing it for future generations. We feel very strongly that this development is a serious threat to the New Forest coastal area and sets a dangerous precedent which could lead to more development in this precious area in the future.

"The New Forest National Park has an undervalued but very important unspoilt coastline between Calshot and Keyhaven. It offers rewarding vistas of the Solent and the Isle of Wight and is home to a variety of wildlife that changes with the seasons. It offers tranquillity and is largely free of modern industry although home to important historical salt workings.

"Quiet lanes alongside hedged field add to a rare feeling of an unchanged landscape set in a modern world. This is an area that requires protection from man's intrusive development plans. The largely unchanged view of the coastline from the Solent is an important aspect of this and should be maintained."

The NFA has set out its objections to the development in detail in its letter to the National Park Authority, dated March 11, 2011.

Close Article     |     Top of Page

The New Forest Association has welcomed moves by the Government to cancel its consultation on the privatisation of forests but warns that the danger to the New Forest, one of the nation's much loved 'heritage' forests, is not over.

Following on from its presentment to the Verderers' Court in Lyndhurst yesterday (February 16th), the New Forest Association warns that the proposed Public Bodies Bill is still a serious threat to the New Forest.

"The Public Bodies Bill is an enabling bill which gives power to Ministers to - amongst other things - sell off the New Forest," said New Forest Association Vice Chairman Peter Roberts. "There is currently no provision for ensuring that the New Forest Acts and therefore the powers of the Verderers remain in place. We have alerted our Members of Parliament to this danger and have asked Lord Judd to propose an amendment in the House of Lords."

Mr Roberts said that the current outcry against the Government's proposals has demonstrated just how much the nation values its forests.

"The process has enabled us all to think about the huge benefits that we are all able to enjoy in the woods, heaths and mires that make up the New Forest and other forest areas. It also reminds us that we should always be vigilant, for it is easy to take these areas of publicly-owned heritage for granted," he said.

"We ask that those who love the New Forest join us so that we, the New Forest Association, can continue to be the one organisation that will act as watchdog and campaign for the Forest as it has done since 1867."

Close Article     |     Top of Page

Forestry Commission Public Forest Estate - Public Consultation

The paper proposes that the New Forest will be classed as what it calls a "Heritage Wood" which can then be passed to a new or existing charity in the form of a trust or a lease. There is mention of funding being given to the charity initially, but the document specifically states that the charity would be expected to become less reliant on Government grants over time, and in some cases move towards financial self reliance. The charity could pursue income generating activities in the forest, consistent with the delivery of public benefits. So ultimately the charity may be expected to meet the full running costs from its own resources and/or by generating income from the Heritage Wood.

We have considered the document and its ideas with care, however it must be said that the consultation paper is very scant on detail and raises many more questions than it answers. Our initial response is therefore as generalised as the consultation paper is itself.

We have to say that we do not believe the proposals, if applied to the New Forest, will work.

Unless a charity can prove beyond any doubt that it has the necessary funds from day one and in perpetuity, it would be negligent for its trustees to take on the responsibility for this huge and precious national treasure. That position should only change if guaranteed funding from the Government is offered instead. It would be an act of unforgivable recklessness to allow any new owner to take on the £5 million annual running cost of the New Forest without certainty that it was financially able to do so.

To use an analogy, it would be like giving a very large, beautiful and old historic house to someone who had insufficient money to do the necessary ongoing repairs and maintenance. Within a generation it would be in a very sorry state, and possibly even uninhabitable and derelict.

Whilst we recognise that the Forestry Commission is suffering cuts, as are we, in line with all Government departments, we still believe that the funding it obtains for the Forest, as a publicly owned asset, is the most secure way of ensuring its future.

With inadequate Government support, any new owner would have no option but to take up the advice of the consultation document and raise extra funds from its asset. The New Forest currently runs at an annual deficit of £2.9 million, and that is the hole that the income will have to fill each and every year. The charity would be forced to take a ruthlessly commercial approach, and almost inevitably the first port of call will be to see how those who visit and enjoy the area and indeed those who live here, could be charged.

Commercial exploitation will be bad for the Forest, it is too fragile and precious an environment to withstand the pressures of such an existence, and ultimately the change of ownership will end up damaging the very thing it was meant to protect and preserve.

The ancient privilege that allows the public to enjoy the New Forest for free as of right, which has prevailed for generations, will be under threat.

The Consultation also speaks of the Big Society. We believe that the way the Forest has been managed over the last hundred years is already a good example of how Big Society should work. The historic system of checks and balances that we already have, which allows the long term national interest to be protected by the Forestry commission as landowner, and the local public interest to be represented and protected by the Verderers is a winning formula proven over decades.

In addition we now have the National Park Authority playing a key role, and like us, they have members who are directly elected by the local community who are unpaid volunteers, sitting around the table making decisions and having hands-on involvement on behalf of the local constituencies that they represent. All three organisations are based here in the New Forest, and taken together they are well proven to be local, accessible and with a strong element of democratic accountability.

Therefore we say that the Big Society requirements of direct stakeholder involvement and control are already well established here in the New Forest. Rather than dismantle this system we would invite the Secretary of State ( The Rt.Hon. Mrs Caroline Spelman MP) to instead use it as an existing example of what Big Society can achieve in the custodianship of a huge tract of publicly owned land.

We feel we must do all that we can to persuade the Government that these proposals will not work, and are akin to dumping the New Forest on the side of the road with a few pennies in its pocket, and leaving it there as a "charity case".

We would urge the public, and the Forest's voluntary organisations, to respond individually to the consultation and say what you think. The Forestry Commission is running a number of events locally at which information on the consultation can be obtained, two of which will be 'drop-in' events here in the Verderers' Hall on the 7th and 12th March, all afternoon and early evening.

We would also encourage members of the public to contact their MPs directly in writing if they are as worried about these proposals as we are.

The New Forest Association, which is the Forest's oldest local charity, recently described this as the biggest crisis it has faced since 1877. We tend to agree.

Public Bodies Bill

This is the legislation that will allow the Forestry Acts to be altered by the Minister, and to enable these changes. It is currently going through the House of Lords.

The Constitution Committee of the House of Lords has already concluded that there are aspects of the draft legislation that are unsafe and amount to what it has called "Henry VIII clauses" which give Ministers wide ranging powers to amend primary legislation without parliamentary scrutiny. Having examined the Bill we need to be assured that there are no powers contained in it that may allow the existing New Forest Acts to be bypassed. We shall thus be considering this morning whether or not to seek specialist legal advice on the matter from parliamentary agents in London.

Close Article     |     Top of Page

In common with many hundreds of thousands of others the New Forest Association is deeply concerned by the proposals outlined in the Government's consultation document relating to the disposal of the Public Forest Estate which is presently owned and managed by the Forestry Commission and in particular to those proposals relating to the New Forest.

We are concerned not just by what is in the consultation document but, just as importantly, what is not as it fails to address a number of vital points pertaining to the New Forest:-

1. No reference is made as to the New Forest being treated as a Cultural as well as a Natural Heritage Forest.
2. No information is given as to whether the full infrastructure of the New Forest would remain intact e.g. the housing, timber, staff etc nor any recognition of the fact that it vital that the whole Forest estate is kept together as a single unit.
3. No reference is made as to whether the existing New Forest Acts would remain unaltered as the cornerstone of the existing protective legislation the New Forest presently enjoys nor that the Verderers' powers would continue unaffected.
4. No reference is made as to how or by whom any new management body would be deemed to be experienced and competent enough to run the New Forest.
5. Apart from suggesting that any new management body might "pursue income generating activities in the Forest" no detail is given as to how adequate funding might be made available to run the New Forest in the long term.
6. No definite information is given as to how the current levels of public access would be maintained.

We are also deeply concerned by the power that would be granted to the Government by the proposed Public Bodies Act as it appears that it could be used to override the existing New Forest Acts and we are making moves to include an amendment to the bill stating "Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or derogate from the provisions of the New Forest Acts 1877 to 1970 or any byelaw made thereunder, or s.4 of the Agriculture & Forestry (Financial Provisions) Act 1991."

We would therefore ask the Verderers to reject the consultation as it stands now and support our efforts to ensure that the Public Bodies Bill is not allowed to threaten the existing New Forest Acts which are the legal basis of their powers. Note: The NFA, established in 1867, is one of the oldest conservation organisations in the world. It is an independent charity with over 900 members. Campaign for National Parks recognises NFA as the New Forest National Park society.

Close Article     |     Top of Page

The New Forest Association has hit out at Government plans to sell off the 'crown jewels' of the New Forest, labelling the plans "appalling". The charity has also warned that the plans, published today (January 27), could lead to people being charged to use the New Forest.

"Plans to find a charity to run the New Forest show a complete lack of understanding of how the forest works," said New Forest Association Chairman William Ziegler. "In the 64 page Government consultation document1 there is no reference to the commoning system, which has created and maintained the forest for all to appreciate.

"This new threat is the most serious attack on the New Forest for 160 years. Any charity that takes on owning and managing the New Forest will be required to find its own funding after initial government help to offset the £2.9m annual deficit. This could mean charging the public for access to the New Forest and will almost certainly involve selling off parts of the estate which currently provide the cornerstone of commoning."

Mr Ziegler said the existing system of management, involving the various but interlocking interests of commoning, conservation, timber production and recreation, would be lost alongside the expertise that the Forestry Commission has gained over many decades.

"The Forestry Commission's staff, and in particular the keepers, have huge local and specialist knowledge of the wildlife which should not be swept away at the stroke of a Whitehall pen," he said.

"We are shocked by the proposals - the Government must be left in doubt as to the real value of the New Forest and we commend everyone that cares about the area to let their thoughts be known to DEFRA."

Close Article     |     Top of Page