UKC

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/27/privatisation-forests...

https://www.shropshirelive.com/news/2018/03/21/campaign-launched-to-save-pu...

Another battle to fight...

Puts me in mind of the similar development at Beddgelert referred to here.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/hilltalk/please_help_save_beddgelert_fore...

The other week we took a ride on the Welsh Highland Railway on a day not particularly suited to climbing things and the building of lodges continues apace at Beddgelert. That particular battle seems to have been lost and the place is an eyesore.

It's an interesting one. We live in Ludlow, directly beneath the woodland where they're planning to build and I regularly mountain bike up there.  The area earmarked for development is relatively small and on the edge of the woods. Ludlow is a town with a large divide between rich and poor, lack of low-skill jobs is a significant factor in this and any development that offers employment has to be seen from this point of view.

Negatives for the development are it's self contained nature i.e. people will be encouraged to attend their money on site rather than putting it into the local economy, the high number of chalets proposed having a disproportionate impact on the woods, and the adverse affect on existing local providers of accommodation, a significant number of whom are small businesses.

What I hadn't realised prior to the Guardian article was how much of the money was going outside of the Forestry Commission. I'm all in favour of them generating income from their assets, but the setup they've gone with looks like another example of a government owned organisation negotiating a deal that ultimately gives poor value to the taxpayer.

A development should not simply be seen from a job creation perspective nor net economic benefit. That is an open door to anything and everything from mining in the Antarctic to tar sands extraction. A simple peg that any company can hang their expansionist plans on. 

We need to take more consideration of the rest of life on this planet as well as the corrossive effect on our own life and environment of this constant nibbling away at what you call assets. 

I agree with the need to protect the environment, but comparing building chalets in an area of managed woodland to drilling in the Antarctic is a large leap of logic.  Our kids go to a school that has an intake including a significant number children who have difficult home life.  Unemployment is one of the many factors that causes difficulties for them and their parents. The problems of rural poverty are very real, but often well hidden in tourist hotspots like Ludlow.

In an ideal world, projects like this would generate significant income for the FC from a very small area of the land they own. These profits could then be used to improve habitats in existing woodland and expand the amount of woodland they own. Unfortunately in practice the easy money is often siphoned off into the pockets of the already wealthy.

I see your point. Of course it would be great if this could be a measured development and if the funds were used as you would clearly like to see above (the tragedy is that it could be like this and sustainable jobs created) and maybe it could if the FC had not not become a cash cow for a private equity firm. 

I work for a company owned by a private equity firm (it wasn't when I started) and maxing profit is the bottom line (unless regulations impose concerns that can't be ignored. The Free Market is anarchy...) What may manifest locally as a small development can thus be expected to spread so the comparison with a more obvious large scale development is justified. Its the same principle, only different in scale.