I suggest a campaign about ...

Forestry Commisson U-TURN - Delamere Forest once again under threat!

Despite the House of Lords overturning the sell off of our beloved Delamere Forest - the Forestry Commisson has prompted a consultation within a window of 1 month to build 70 holiday homes across the Forest creating a devastating impact on the wild life, trees and habitat.

PLEASE HELP US FIGHT THIS! Is there nowhere in the north west which is protected from development??!!

This area is vital protecting what wildlife we have left, and now the FC (gov) want to strip a huge area, laying pipes and leading to the inevitable human contamination.

The email address that I was supplied only today from the FC is: delamereconsultation@forestry.gsi.gov.uk. Please register your objections.

The website which suggests the plans in detail is: www.forestry.gov.uk/delamereproject.

Many thanks for your support,

Helen Beaumont-Kellner
Someone who cares about the environmental impact!

698 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    AnonymousAnonymous shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    72 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • DavidDavid commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        In my initial objection, I understood access was to be via Waterloo Lane but now see that this is no longer the case.
        The arguement against the development still stands, as it will destroy the quietest and most tranquil part of the forest.
        It's going to be like Centreparcs but without pools and restaurants!

      • Paul CaldwellPaul Caldwell commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I find it quite bewildering that the way out of a financial crisis caused mainly by the property market, is with property. Come on - think outside the box!
        If conventional, mono cultural forestry is no longer viable, how about growing native, mixed species for coppiced fuel? There's plenty of houses with woodburners in the very local area, and it's SUSTAINABLE.

      • Sue ParrySue Parry commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        That forest has been there for thousands of years. Do we really want to be the generation that allows it to be destroyed? When it's gone, it's gone.

      • Kerry ShiplanesKerry Shiplanes commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Rip the forest apart to make way for a money making scheme, but if you are caught taking so much as a dead branch out of the forest to burn on the fire to keep your family warm they will throw the book at you.

      • DavidDavid commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I have written to object
        1) I think that the extra likely traffic will destroy the very character of Waterloo Lane, which is a quiet and peaceful road - and the corner where they propose to take a spur road to the development is dangerous enough with existing traffic flows.
        2) The junctions where Waterloo Lane meets with Meeting House Lane and Meeting House then meets Norley Road will certainly need a major re-think to cope with the anticipated extra traffic flow. These roads were never designed to cope with such extra traffic.
        3) Currently local residents access the forest via Waterloo Lane and the extra traffic will be a danger to cyclists and pedestrians who wish to continue to use this route. There is no pavement along Waterloo Lane, which isn’t a problem at the moment but will be with the likely extra traffic flow.
        4) If they really wish to have such a development in the forest, could they not use one of the existing access points on Delamere Road and possibly relocate the development accordingly? They have enough access points and car parks already established along this road.

        5) Is there not a danger in that attracting many new visitors to the forest from further afield, they will destroy the very peace and tranquillity which many local people currently enjoy from visiting the area?

        II think that the proposal, whilst probably financially attractive to DEFRA, will do nothing for the future of the forest itself, nor the locals who enjoy visiting it.

      • Bill CresswellBill Cresswell commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I am appalled by these proposals.The relative peace of the forest will be lost forever. How can the Forestry Commission contemplate such a development? Have they lost all sense of responsibility to their mission? Can someone please tell us who these people are how they are appointed and to whom they are accountable?

      • Fiona GoodierFiona Goodier commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Just another example of how high handed the forestry commission is. Just like the forest concert site which residents knew nothing about this is another example of how locals are never taken into consideration. I completely agree with all objections to this proposal and huge everyone to fight against it.

      • Giles KellnerGiles Kellner commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Re: Ronald Astley's comment below - I could not have put it better myself. Delamere is an oasis of tranquility for the neighbouring communities and its value to the community is being utterly ignored by these proposals. I urge everyone to visit the website Communities against the Destruction of Delamere, to e-mail the delamere consultation e-mail address above and those in the local community to Delamere should e-mail their local councillor who may be able to influence the planning authority. Thanks

      • Ronald AstleyRonald Astley commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        The proposals seem to be based on a total misunderstanding of the role of Delamere Forest. It is not like the large FC forests out in Wales, it is an island of woodland surrounded by urban areas, industries, busy roads. Amazingly, it still has a feeling of the natural environment. Its value to the well-being and health of the neighbouring communities is incalculable, far outweighing any unproven boost to economic activity in the area. There is no mandate for turning it into a Centerpark-style Noddy wood with artificially 'designed' trails. It should also be asked if the Forestry Commission has a mandate to compete with local privately owned businesses such as other holiday lodges, B&Bs etc. The consultation is of course a charade as a project officer has already been appointed and only very limited detail will be open to change. The plan seems to go out of its way to inflict the maximum damage, for instance, a new road through the heart of the forest to the lodges instead of a short direct route from the nearby boundary opposite Claim Farm. It is difficult to understand anyone with the slightest concern for the environment putting this plan forward. Ironically, there is a sign near the proposed lodge area that warns of felling to improve the environment and the situation for wild life! I suspect the plan is a punishment for frustrating the sell-off.

      • Mark SlaterMark Slater commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This is the thin end of a large wedge born from the failure to sell off the forest wholesale. If the campaign to stop the sell off of the forests is to have meant anything, then this needs to be opposed with equal vigour, as it's essentially the same thing via stealth - regarding the forests as simply an economic resource to be exploited, with the damn Forestry Commission acting as facilitator!!!

      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I fully support the campaign against this ill-advised proposed development which seems to too large, in the wrong location and offering little or no benefit to the local area. I wish you good luck,

        Simon

      • PhytoramediantPhytoramediant commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate


        The notion that a forest may be protected by chopping it down and building on it is flawed.

        This experiment has been tried before. The areas of this experimentation are now called 'Caravan Parks', 'Campsites', 'Chalets', 'Hamlets', 'Villages', 'Towns' and 'Cities'.
        None of the places where this experiment has been carried out are called 'Forests'.
        The area called 'Forests' are those areas where building has not replaced trees. These forests used to stretch for hundreds of miles but now exist as only isolated patches in between the places where things have been built to house people.
        As the number of people increases, even these isolated patches of forest are experiencing erosion by visiting people. Erosion by visitors is not quelled by increasing the number of visiting people.

        Please do not replace forests with buildings. If people wish to visit some buildings, then those places exist between the remaining forests. Those of us who wish to visit the remaining forests can only do that by visiting the places in between the buildings and transport systems. These places have become very few and far between and are far too crowded with people already. They do not become more plentiful or more 'foresty' by being replaced by somewhere else where there is not a forest.
        There is also an issue that wildlife prefers to live in places which are not inhabited by man. In order that this wildlife continues to survive, it is best that this wildlife does not have its habitat turned into a place inhabited by man (See above list for those places).

        The philosophy underlying these proposals now determine the entire of Forestry Commission planning. The age in which their role was seen as Stewardship has gone. They are now fronts for Multinational business concerns and the baseline is maximising profit from their resources.
        That this will destroy the very thing they were set up to preserve is not of any concern to them. I've talked and argued with these people for over a decade and, trust me, they see no intrinsic value in nature aside from something to market.
        We need a complete overhaul of the entire Forestry Commission system (And, by that I DON'T mean handing it even more to the Multinational Greenwash Industry) . They can NOT be trusted with this ever more endangered resource.
        Delamere Forest is only one very little taster in the ongoing massive program of Privatisation by Stealth.

      • Dr Charlotte StarkeyDr Charlotte Starkey commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Delamere Forest is one of the last areas in the South Manchester, Central and North Cheshire areas where the outstanding beauty of natural, long-established forestry remains. It has been and remains a long-cherished area of relaxation, peace and beauty within a region increasingly destroyed by development and 'new build' of all kinds. If this proposed 'tourist' development is allowed, it will bring in private ownership of land; and that idea was challenged successfully, not least by 38 Degrees, when this government first proposed privatisation of remaining forestry. In future years the land at present part of the forest can then be resold for further 'development', another word for the destruction of the forest. I see the Forestry Commission are also suggesting their support for the idea. Clearly one wonders what the benefits to that body would, therefore, be if this proposal were to go ahead since their remit is to manage the forestry, not to participate in its destruction.

        Any arguments in support, suggesting increased employment and income from letting and tourism for the locality, are spurious and short-term.The North West will only increase its economic base with real jobs in manufacturing, research and investment, and in those regions where manufacturing and population have always worked together, not in destroying the natural assets - assets which have always brought people to this area, and the money they have always spent locally when they came, to enjoy the peace and beauty of natural woodland. This proposal is a blinkered, destructive plan. It takes centuries to grow a woodland that brings joy to millions; it takes a few minutes for a developer to kill it with bulldozers and chainsaws for a quick profit. Charlotte Starkey

      • kate cornishkate cornish commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        We visit Delamere every day. This development will destroy the habitat of much wildlife not to mention adding greatly to the total of trees which have already been chopped down in preparation for this development. They are literally going to pave paradise and put up a parking lot and they must be stopped.
        Why are they putting the cabins the other side of the forest from Linmere Lodge which is already developed? This makes no sense and they will have to put in new roads for people to get to the cabins. Just what we need – traffic in the forest. They say it's a "under-used" part of the forest which is lies. We go to this part of the forest every day and it is always being used by many people cycling and walking there dogs. Why can't a peaceful bit of woodland be kept as just that? We must stop this going ahead.

      • Chris PriceChris Price commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I agree with Kate and Adele. These lodges should be built outside our beautiful forest. The old Marley site must have existing utilities which can be updated easier than digging up the forest for new ones. Delamere is a much loved place by people from a large radius leave well alone.

      • ian stubbsian stubbs commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        So the government has run out of money and the forestry commission have to find revenue in order to sustain an income? Fair enough but do they really think that the people of England will let them keep taking there heritage ,country side and culture away in order to balance there books.
        You cannot replace what you destroy .
        We have had our industry taken off us leaving kid's with little trade option's we have had our cities and town's over run with immigrants and what do we get in return ?.
        And now we have to sit back and allow the country side be desecrated so some yuppies can sit and drink wine with the squirrels because our government can't afford to look after its own back garden.
        Delamere forest is one of the only untouched places left that is not been sold out to a corporation but once those chalet's go in it will only be a matter of time before it's sold off and no one can walk or cycle through without paying.
        Good luck to every body fighting this but i doubt your voices will be heard London is skint and they don't care.

      • Robert walkerRobert walker commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I walk in this forest everyday with my dog especially where they are planning to build these cabins, it is a beautiful quiet spot which is enjoyed by other dog walkers cyclists and horse riders, never any cars and that is how it should stay.

      • Caroline GregsonCaroline Gregson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I visit the northern area of Delamere forest 2-3 times a week . This area may not have the SSSIs meres and long reaching views that you find in other parts of our forest but what it does
        have, and the reason I choose to spend time there is tranquility. The birdsong can be deafening, the light through the trees magical and you can walk for miles and see noone. How many other places in Cheshire can boast all this and yet still be so accessible.
        This is the area that will be bisected by the access road to 78 holiday lodges accommodating up to 500 people. Forest Holidays expect 90% occupancy year round, the majority of it short stay. All of these visitors will be driving their cars along currently traffic free forest roads between the switchback road to the lodge site in the most northern section of woodland. If, as the FC maintain the visitors will be using pubs shops and businesses in the surrounding area this road is going to be pretty busy.
        So much for peace and tranquility, so much for being able to roam freely without worrying about traffic.
        If this development goes ahead we will lose a very special place forever. I am very sad.

      • Kate HarrisonKate Harrison commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        There are only pics of the proposed cabins - no plans or details of proposed facilities. The distance to the visitor centre means that users are likely to drive somewhere when they need supplies. Maybe they will go to local shops in Kingsley, Delamere or Ashton? Probably they will just go to a large supermarket en route or order a delivery online.. If there is a shop on site, will they want to walk there if it's dark or will they expect lighting? What about the existing energy supply - if these cabins are full of electrical equipment - flat screen TV, cookers, fridges even saunas; what about heating? - is the local supply up to this? Will there be green, renewable energy? How eco friendly will they be; local communities are working hard to lower their carbon footprints but this will hugely affect CO2 emmissions. A spokesperson says " It's for people who really want to enjoy the forest experience" . . but we will tell you how and where you can enjoy it. Cycle HERE! Picnic HERE! Walk HERE! Don't go HERE! How are they going to prevent parking along the 'switchback road' through the forest without something intrusive? There could be some benefit to local pubs and restaurants but this could all be achieved without building IN the forest - the old Marley site could be developed instead, leaving more of the forest to be enjoyed.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base