News RSS Feed


Mobile news, sport and travel from the Daily Echo Coverage of the swine flu outbreak The Tigers - PWRR Southampton Cenotaph Memorial Wall Campaign


Campaigners start £50,000 Forest fund

2:20pm Monday 6th October 2008

comment Comments (10)   Have your say »


THEY waved a large Union flag and played a rousing selection of patriotic tunes, including Jerusalem and Land of Hope and Glory.

Amid scenes that would not have looked out of place at the Last Night of the Proms, hundreds of people attended a massive demonstration in the New Forest.

The atmosphere they created reflected their fighting spirit and determination to preserve their way of life.

All roads led to Wilverley Plain, near Brockenhurst, on Saturday as the Forest staged one of the biggest protests the area has ever seen.

Horse owners and dog walkers joined forces to condemn the New Forest National Park Authority and all the restrictions contained in its new recreation management plan.

The protesters, many of whom were on horseback, called for the unelected body to be abolished.

The demonstration was staged by the newly formed pressure group Forest Uprising, which launched a £50,000 fighting fund at the event to finance a possible legal challenge to the proposals.

Speakers included the area’s two MPs, Desmond Swayne and Dr Julian Lewis.

Dr Lewis, who represents New Forest East, said: “When the New Forest National Park was being set up Desmond and I said we were worried about the accountability, democracy and sensitivity with which it would be run.

“If you take away democracy and accountability, the people who are supposed to be our representatives tell us what to do.

“More often than not they get it absolutely wrong – and that’s what’s happening now.

“This fat, impenetrable document took many months to prepare but the community has been given just ten short weeks to respond.”

Dr Lewis described the National Park Authority as out of touch and added: “The only solution is to get rid of it.”

Mr Swayne, who represents New Forest West, said: “The people who wrote the document, whatever their motives, know precious little about keeping a horse or walking a dog.

“They want to make their mark – and that mark will be made on you and your rights.”

If the proposals are approved, horse owners will have to obtain planning permission for a raft of activities affecting their animals.

Dog owners say proposals to create “dog-free” car parks will effectively exclude them from huge parts of the Forest.

Audrey Pocock of the New Forest Tourism Association warned that the proposed restrictions could damage businesses that relied on visitors to the Forest.

She said: “The tourists won’t come – why should they? They won’t be able to walk their dogs and enjoy the Forest.

“The whole industry will be enormously affected. I don’t think the National Park Authority has any idea what will happen if these proposals are adopted, so let’s say ‘no’ to this ridiculous nonsense.”

The demonstration was attended by representatives from the British Horse Society and other members of the equine community.

Farrier Alex Chalmers said: “It’s important that everyone in the Forest stands together, shoulder to shoulder, and says ‘no’ to everything that the National Park Authority stands for.”

The demonstration was attended by at least two members of the National Park Authority – Alan Rice and Maureen Holding.

Mrs Holding, also a district councillor for Brockenhurst, decided to enter the lion’s den and address the placard-waving crowd.

She said: “I’m here to listen to you all.

It’s very important that everyone has turned out today to speak their mind about what they want."

Boss defends far-reaching proposals

THE head of the New Forest National Park Authority has defended the controversial plans which provoked up to 1,000 objectors to stage their mass protest.

Chairman Clive Chatters insisted that the far-reaching proposals about horse-ownership, dog-walking and roads were among many ideas to conserve the Forest for future generations.

Road tolls are among the suggestions contained in the draft recreation strategy document, which runs to more than 100 pages.

Mr Chatters said: “Traffic has a real and increasing impact on the things that make the National Park special and people should consider in responding to these plans what they would like us and our partners to do about it.

“If people have other ideas for tackling traffic we are keen to hear them.

“The idea of pricing is nothing new and features in transport plans for the New Forest area already, but there are no specific plans for road pricing at this stage.

“I urge everyone with a genuine interest in the New Forest National Park to read the plans and respond either online or on the forms provided.

“In that way, their views will be taken into account by authority members before any decisions are taken on the final plans.”

Objectors claim that proposed new restrictions on the way horses are kept could force people to sell their animals or have them put down.

National Park Authority members say one of the key proposals aims to ensure that each horse has enough grazing land to meet its needs.

They also insist that the new regulations would prevent fields being divided into smaller paddocks, resulting in a proliferation of unsightly sheds and fences.

  • See today's Daily Echo for the full story


Your Say YourDaily Echo

Mr E Guest, Chartwell Green says...
10:24am Mon 6 Oct 08

"Horse owners and dog walkers joined forces to condemn the New Forest National Park Authority and all the restrictions contained in its new recreation management plan." - WHAT restrictions? A bit of context would help here, please, Mr Yandell. What did the NFNPA have to say in response to the protests? Did you even ask them, or is this story deliberately the usual one-sided shoddy jounralism?

warriewood, wootton says...
10:36am Mon 6 Oct 08

MR Guest
The Restrictions are proposed in the National Park's proposals for the New Forest for the next 20 years. The grievances are many but in short would lead to most horses being removed from the forest, the creation of development zones, restricted access to dogs, toll roads and road closures the list goes on. The NFNPA are frequently asked to respond but won't consult. The other issue is that they are a Quango given powers that normally would only be within the remit of an elected body.

Bambi, Southampton says...
10:39am Mon 6 Oct 08

Mr E Guest wrote:
"Horse owners and dog walkers joined forces to condemn the New Forest National Park Authority and all the restrictions contained in its new recreation management plan." - WHAT restrictions? A bit of context would help here, please, Mr Yandell. What did the NFNPA have to say in response to the protests? Did you even ask them, or is this story deliberately the usual one-sided shoddy jounralism?
You've missed the key phrase:

See today's Daily Echo for the full story.

This is only a teaser, so rather than any ineptitude it's your inability to read what is actually written.

John Fleming, Southampton says...
11:12am Mon 6 Oct 08

warriewood wrote:
MR Guest The Restrictions are proposed in the National Park's proposals for the New Forest for the next 20 years. The grievances are many but in short would lead to most horses being removed from the forest, the creation of development zones, restricted access to dogs, toll roads and road closures the list goes on. The NFNPA are frequently asked to respond but won't consult. The other issue is that they are a Quango given powers that normally would only be within the remit of an elected body.
But it is a consultation document therefore they are consulting. Julian Lewis can't be complaining about the lack of time to respond if there is not a consultation process. Just look at the NPA's website and you can see they are inviting comments. It may be possible that they don't want go to public meetings and be shouted at but that doesn't mean you can't get your points to them.

I think there is a lot of unnecessary stirring up going on here. Yes there may be some unacceptable proposals but they are all up for discussion and won't necessarily actually happen.

The New Forest NPA has two remits:

To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park.

To promote opportunities for understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities.

It is not there to go out of its way to upset local people but it is also not there only to cede to their every demand.


Andy Locks Heath, says...
12:02pm Mon 6 Oct 08

That's a fair point John, but consider that the Forest's "beauty" was achieved without any NPA-like body, moreover everything the Forest now has may exist BECAUSE there was no interfering body trying to control the Forest's rare interplay of man and nature. Moreover the two aims or "Mission Statement" (ugh) of the NPA do not mention or acknowledge the people who live and work in the Forest - the aim seems to be to turn the Forest into a Goldfish Bowl into which outsiders can peer while being fed a policially rich diet of words like "sustainable" "eco-tourism" "environment" "diversity" and so on, all of which the Forest has managed to provide anyway.
I am not actually against everything the NPA proposes - but it could have been achieved with more care and understanding by NFDC and the Verderers.

r50mini, Blandford says...
1:04pm Mon 6 Oct 08

The New Forest is there for EVERYONE to enjoy. Why do these "unelected suits" insist on implementing controls and sanitising peoples enjoyment of the Outdoors. What next implementing controls so that only the rich and famous have access to certain areas of the Forest.

warriewood, wootton says...
1:17pm Mon 6 Oct 08

John Fleming wrote:
warriewood wrote: MR Guest The Restrictions are proposed in the National Park's proposals for the New Forest for the next 20 years. The grievances are many but in short would lead to most horses being removed from the forest, the creation of development zones, restricted access to dogs, toll roads and road closures the list goes on. The NFNPA are frequently asked to respond but won't consult. The other issue is that they are a Quango given powers that normally would only be within the remit of an elected body.
But it is a consultation document therefore they are consulting. Julian Lewis can't be complaining about the lack of time to respond if there is not a consultation process. Just look at the NPA's website and you can see they are inviting comments. It may be possible that they don't want go to public meetings and be shouted at but that doesn't mean you can't get your points to them. I think there is a lot of unnecessary stirring up going on here. Yes there may be some unacceptable proposals but they are all up for discussion and won't necessarily actually happen. The New Forest NPA has two remits: To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park. To promote opportunities for understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities. It is not there to go out of its way to upset local people but it is also not there only to cede to their every demand.
A little bit nieve I would say. Just because they say they are consulting does not mean that they are. They do not respond to letters, give any reasonable response to requests for comment. They released the document in the summer without telling anyone. i am a resident in the forest and can assure you that if there had been no campaign we would have known nothing about it. The sheer incompetence of the document is also astounding they have no local knowledge. How would you like your local government being run by unelected civil servants from anywhere but the area you live in?

Lone Ranger, Southampton says...
6:19pm Mon 6 Oct 08

The questions that i ask is. "IF any of these proposals were adopted would they be for the benefit of the New Forest and everyone that uses it, not only now but for future generations". Should the answer be YES then as far as i am concerned job done, end of arguement. However i suspect that there are a few people in the Forest who think that they own it and can do as they wish.They probably think that because they have always done it, they can continue to do so. Perhaps we have been presented with a few ideas that they just dont like.
In addition, perhaps the inmates no longer have the keys to the prison.

Kiwi, Southampton says...
9:04pm Mon 6 Oct 08

I still haven't heard one comment from the Verderers

Kiwi, Southampton says...
12:39am Tue 7 Oct 08

Everyone is concerned about themselves. Does anyone think about the animals that inhabit the Forest.
Also the Forest can manage itself if left alone and it seems to me that Commoners Rights are being overlooked. If the NPA is proposing to legislate to protect the Forest then more strength to their arm. Look to the Forest families to protect the Forest seek advice from the Verderers and Agisters and not from an uninformed mob of geriatric yuppies

Comments are closed on this article.

Protesters turn out in force to fight National Park plan Protesters turn out in force to fight National Park plan Protesters turn out in force to fight National Park plan

Protesters turn out in force to fight National Park plan

Protesters turn out in force to fight National Park plan

Protesters turn out in force to fight National Park plan



Sponsored Links


Video News Food & Restaurant Reviews

Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »