England is no longer a well-wooded country, with only 9% of its land area designated as forest. A long history of clearances and the depredations of the industrial revolution denuded the once lush natural woodland cover that would, if left to nature, cover much of the land area. By the end of the first Word War, cover was down to less than 5% and our strategic reserves of timber reaching crisis point. Blockaded, the UK had come close to defeat through a lack of pit props, which threatened our ability to mine the coal desperately needed for the war effort.   In 1919, the Liberal-Tory coalition of Lloyd-George responded to this by establishing the Forestry Commission, giving it the task of replanting and managing our Forests as a strategic reserve. It is with further irony that the present alliance of these Parties is set to emasculate the Commission.

How Lloyd George, Liberal father of the welfare state, must be turning in his grave!

The English Public Forest Estate [PFE] is made up of over 1000 woods covering 258,000 hectares, 18% of English woodland. Of this area, 24% is ancient woodland and 10% classified as priority conservation areas. 45% of the woodland is in the National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and 26% are Sites of Special Scientific Interest. These figures demonstrate the heritage and ecological value of publicly owned woodland. To add to its public value, 90% of the Forestry Commissions free holding is open to public access. In Derbyshire, there are 3154 ha of Commission woodland, from the Heritage woods of Ladybower to part of the new National Forest in South Derbyshire.

In simple monetary terms, the PFE is currently valued at around £700 million, a mere drop in the ocean of the National Debt of £950 billion. In 2007-8, the net cost of managing the estate was £15 million, after accounting for profits of about £60 million. This is about 30p per person in England. Put this in perspective. The official cost of the Bank bailout, agreed by the Treasury, was £850 billion of public money. This is £13,755 per UK resident. At least Caroline Spelman, Minister charged with the job of overseeing the sale, admitted that this was not a revenue generating exercise by a cash-strapped Government. What she would not admit was this is ideologically driven – that the Tory landowners want this land under their control.

One of the first acts of the Thatcher administration in the 1980’s was to enable the sale of public woodland through the 1981 Forest Act, resulting in the sale of thousands of acres of public land. The Labour Government reined in this policy after 1997, with about 10,000 ha of ‘surplus’ land being sold over the next decade. This was land considered marginal to the Forestry Commission’s core business. On coming to power, the Tories once again lined up this publicly owned land for sale, immediately planning to sell 40,000 ha, and planning to change the law to allow the disposal of most of the rest.

What is their motivation? Spelman says it is not primarily economic. When fully worked out – that is when all values are based on the restrictive covenants that the Tories are promising – it is likely that there will be no net gain to the Treasury from their policy. She claims that one of the main motives for a sale was the need to ‘enhance biodiversity.’ Other’s claim that sale to the private sector will enhance ‘public enjoyment of woodland’. These claims do not stand up to analysis and are frankly laughable. Certainly, there are well-managed private woodlands with excellent public facilities. Most of these facilities are charged for, and, reading the small print you will find that access is concessionary and not a public right ‘in perpetuity’ as with present Forestry Commission owned land.

Since the Norman invasion, land ownership has underpinned the power structure of this country. The Conqueror awarded his loyal lieutenants rich country estates and there after, crowned heads continued to buy loyalty with gifts of land. All this built on the presumption that the land area of the British Islands belonged to the monarch. The ordinary British people did not quite see it this way and fought to keep traditional common rights of use and passage. But the greed of their Lordships knew no bounds; they excluded the people, denied common rights, hung them, flogged them, and transported them if they had the effrontery to try to exercise these rights by taking small animals for the stew pot or wood with which to heat it. Land ownership was the clear line in the sand that divided the ruled from the rulers – and that is the way the descendents of the Norman Barons want to keep it.

History aside, there is another reason for the sell-off that fits in with the right wing agenda of this Government, tax avoidance. Investors who buy woodland can benefit from a range of grants and tax incentives and tax avoidance loopholes designed to encourage private ownership of woodlands in the UK. The income and profits from timber sales in woodlands managed commercially are free from both Income and Corporation Tax and after two years of ownership, woodland is not subject to inheritance tax. With a shortage of such investment woodland on the market, the Tories, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, are offering public land as tax-free investments to their loyal and rich supporters. So once the land is sold, it will provide zero return for the taxpayer.

No matter what Spelman says, incorporating this private landholding in to a strategic plan for biodiversity, for watershed management, for erosion control, as a reserve of a vital resource, as a managed carbon sink and as a national recreational asset will be all the more difficult for being split up and managed according to different criteria.  Forging agreements that will last hundreds of years, across a wide range of different interests, many with a commercial imperative as the bottom line will be expensive. The private players will want and expect public subsidy if they are to act in the public interest. This policy therefore has a price tag that we will have to pay. The Tories are selling an asset that could at the very least is revenue neutral, and are creating a liability, the scale of which they have no clue.

What can you do? Look at the Defra consultation, which is open until 21^st April 2011.http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/forests/index.htm.

Support the Woodland Trust that has a petition and a response to the consultation.http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/Pages/default.aspx

Sign the petition by 38 Degrees opposing the sale, and join in their campaign. http://38degrees.org.uk/

Write to your MP stating clearly your views and seeking his or her position. Publicise both through letters to the papers. Make your voice loud and clear, ‘Our Forests are Not for Sale.’

[Mike Shipley, 30 January2011]

Peter Allen, 49, of Glossop will represent the Green Party in the High Peak constituency. Peter says:

I am delighted that voters in High Peak will now have the chance to vote Green. This election will be the most important in recent times: Britain and the world face a perfect storm as we suffer the worst financial crisis in living memory, while millions of people are losing their homes due to climate change, and the search for continued growth wreaks devastation on the world’s rainforests and ecology. To cap it all, we experience an energy crisis, as easy-to-mine fossil fuels diminish. Only the Green Party offers the right response, with our programme for sustainable living and social justice.

To underline the urgency of Climate Change, Peter will be travelling to London with other Green Party members to take part in The Wave demonstration next weekend. Expected to attract a million participants, this event will demand that the world’s leaders face up to the dangers of global warming now and begin to implement policies necessary to ensure the survival of humanity on the planet.  Green Party leader Caroline Lucas recently spelled out our collective challenge:

We now have to recognise that climate change is potentially the greatest challenge we’ve ever faced. At the same time the measures we need to tackle it, like a massive investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy will actually make jobs, and will help us out of recession.

The other three Green Party candidates in Derbyshire are:

• Lee Fletcher, Erewash
• Josh Stockell, Derbyshire Dales
• Duncan Kerr, Chesterfield

Patrick McLoughlin letter of objection 18th August 2009

Support the Green Party if you actually care about renewable energy!

The Derbyshire Green Party objects to the narrow view John Riddall takes in his support of those opposing the turbines at Carsington  (hardly a ‘Wind Farm’). Carsington reservoir itself has made a far bigger and longer lasting change to the landscape than this relatively small wind project will do.

The “peace and tranquility” he refers to is news to us, as it must be to others.  Visitors are frequently subjected to the noise of bikers showing off the speed and power of their machines.  In addition the Visitor Centre attracts thousands of people who travel there by cars that create noise, danger and pollution on a scale that will dwarf anything created by the wind project.  All partly offset by the joy of sailing — and the sailors  won’t hear the turbines!

Carsington reservoir was built to provide for our ever-increasing consumption (and waste) of water.  Wind power is needed to meet our continuing demand for (and waste) of electricity. When we learn to live within what our island can provide on a truly sustainable basis, then we will find that wind and water power will again become essential to the maintenance of a lifestyle free of the drudgery experienced before the development of electricity.

• Explicitly require a Retail Impact Assessment to be carried out
• Require that this Assessment be independently checked, including the use of information gained from reviews of Retail Impact Assessments used to support similar developments
• Require that any development leads to a net increase in Full Time Employment jobs, not just for the area covered by the Development Brief, but at least for the area defined as Belper town centre.

There are several references to sustainability in the Draft Development Brief, but none specifically refer to traffic. Sections 8.9 to 8.10 blatantly leave it open for a developer such as Tesco to claim that they are using the very latest in building design, while omitting any reference to the increased traffic caused by a development such as a superstore.

There are several references in the Draft Development Brief to the “congested” A6, yet there is no evidence to support this rather emotive term.
The A6 is congested at certain times on summer Sundays (by people travelling to and from Derbyshire Dales and The Peak District), and on weekdays when a lorry is making a delivery. Such congestion is temporary, and more easily (and cheaply) dealt with by other means than by building another road.

Whereas drivers travelling by car to Derby during the week experience real congestion on the approach to Derby because of the sheer volume of traffic, traffic volume in Belper is not currently a problem. But a superstore, by its very nature, requires a huge amount of customer traffic to support it. That traffic will come from both directions along the A6 (causing real congestion with concomitant pollution at the Morrison’s roundabout and The Triangle) and/or the east side of Belper (in which case it will have to make its way along John O’Gaunt’s Way, Nottingham Road and New Road, or Far Laund, Chesterfield Road, Church Lane, Field Lane and Bridge St.). Add to this the delivery lorries required to keep the superstore stocked with goods which will not be locally sourced. How does this fit with the Borough Council’s duties under the Climate Change Act?

The Development Brief should:

• Be supported by evidence of present levels of traffic on the A6.
• Require a Traffic Impact Assessment which assesses the likely effects of any proposed development not only within the vicinity of the superstore, but on all roads likely to be affected.

Such an assessment should assess the likely traffic and pollution effects of all options for developing the site. It should:

• Make explicit reference to the need to comply with the requirements of the Climate Change Act.
• Require that any traffic increase is kept to a minimum.

ASHGATE

Electorate: 8667

Ray Russell (LD) – 1467 – ELECTED
John Boult (C) – 936
Avis Murphy (L) – 627
Patrick Ralph (G) – 342

Turnout: 38.9%
Green Party share of vote: 10.1%

CHAPEL & HOPE VALLEY

Electorate: 11469

Tracy Critchlow (C) – 2058
Timothy Norton (L) – 753
David Mount (G) – 645
Jane Simm (LD) – 593

Turnout: 35.3%
Green Party share of vote: 15.9%

HOLYMOORSIDE & WINGERWORTH

Electorate: 7216

Stuart Ellis (C) – 2131 – ELECTED
Doug Oxspring (LD) – 616
Kelvin Karim (G) – 585
Michael Prout (L) – 562

Turnout: 54.0%
Green Party share of vote: 15.0%

LONG EATON

Electorate: 13067

Roland Hosker (L) – 1262 – ELECTED
Kevin Miller (C) – 1242
Susannah Allen (LD) – 528
Lee Fletcher (G) – 444

Turnout: 26.6%
Green Party share of vote: 12.8%

WIRKSWORTH

Electorate: 9257

Garry Purdy (C) – 1679 – ELECTED
Irene Ratcliffe (L) – 1394
Josh Stockell (G) – 698

Turnout: 40.7%
Green Party share of vote: 18.5%

I advocate voting not abstaining, despite or rather because of the unacceptable behaviour of many senior politicians – some of whom are apologising, but always conditionally and only after being found out!

Reasons To Vote Green

• The Green Party would never do cash for luxuries
• The Green Party advises strongly against endless “progress”
• The Green Party wants fairer shares (like the Labour Party used to)
• Government and institutions have already paid the bankers too much, at too high a risk to the survival of life as we know it

European Elections

• You can vote Green Party in the European election.
• Because this election uses a form of proportional representation a Green candidate can win and probably will win one of the five places. It isn’t a wasted vote!
• Please vote for the Green Party.  Sue Mallender is lead candidate in the regional list.

The five are local people who want to introduce environmental policies to the way the county is run.  They’ll be putting forward policies that help improve everyone’s quality of life while taking care of the climate as well.  These include support for affordable local homes with universal free insulation, and speed limits that protect people and the climate.

“The Green Party is delighted to be introducing these five excellent candidates to the Derbyshire electorate,” says party spokesperson Jane Temple.  “We know there is growing support in the county for policies that put the environment first and by voting in a Green councillor local people can be sure their views will be heard at County Hall.”

All the Green Party candidates live in the area and are active in their local communities, campaigning on issues such as safe roads and effective recycling policies. The candidates will be standing in the Long Eaton, Holymoorside & Wingerworth, Chapel & Hope Valley, Wirksworth and Ashgate divisions.

The five Green Party candidates standing in the Derbyshire County Council elections are:

• Lee Fletcher (Long Eaton):  Lee has two daughters, lives in Long Eaton and is a keen cyclist and school governor.
• Kelvin Karim (Holymoorside & Wingerworth):  Kelvin, a registered nurse, lives in Wingerworth and is married with three children.
• David Mount (Chapel & Hope Valley):  David, a married father of three lives in Edale and works as an environmental adviser.
• Patrick Ralph (Ashgate):  Patrick has three children, has lived in Chesterfield for over twenty years and is a self-employed software developer.
• Josh Stockell (Wirksworth):  Josh is a joiner, has lived and worked in Wirksworth for more than ten years and his two children have attended local schools.

The Green Party also has a list of five candidates contesting the election to the European Parliament which is happening on the same day:

• Cllr. Sue Mallender
• Cllr. Richard Mallender
• Cllr. Ashley Baxter
• Cllr. Matthew Follett
• Barney Smith

For further information please contact:

• Jane Temple getinvolved@derbyshiregreenparty.org.uk

If we take the example of Arkwright’s mill at Cromford: a visit there will show that the machines were powered with two water wheels that generated around 20 horse power. Arkwright soon ran out of power and moved round the corner to a weir on the Derwent where he built Masson Mill with a further two water wheels that generated around 30HP. Whilst these pioneers showed the way for the industrial revolution, it did not happen until steam engines where improved to the stage that they could generate substantially higher powers and for 150 years our energy came from coal, the start of the human cause of global warming.

The advent of electrical technology provided a more efficient way of converting energy and Masson Mills installed their first water turbine driven alternator of 100kW in the 1920s and added a further one of 160kW in the 1950s. They now have the ability to produce 260kW but are unable to do so on a continuous basis as there is not enough water in the Derwent. Nevertheless they continue to supply electricity to the grid as they have done for many years.

Let me put these power levels on a practical level: a modern car has an engine of 50 – 100 HP (37 – 75 kW) which is as much or more power than Arkwright had to run his two mills. A modern house will be wired to consume 25kW and if supplied with gas and a modest boiler to take another 20kW (a total of 60HP). Masson Mill’s alternators would perhaps be able to supply electricity for around 20 houses.

The generators proposed for Matlock Moor will be rated at 2,500kW each, a total of 12,500kW, eighty times the output of Masson Mill. An output that would be both difficult and very expensive to collect from all the rivers in Derbyshire. The choice is ours. We either accept the relatively benign modern wind generators (and other forms or renewable energy sources) or we will have to go without our cars and other high energy consuming devices that we have come to rely on in recent years.

Charles Brown
Derbyshire Green Party