I G ELLIS wrote in the November 4 issue of The Review to express his concerns about new homes and work-places, a possible new academy and a new road being "dumped" in the Forest. If your letters pages are any guide, he is not alone in being concerned about proposed changes to the Forest. But I do wonder which version of the Forest your correspondents wish to preserve.

Being an 'incomer' (as of 1999), I am clearly not well-qualified to contest the views of the 'born and bred', but the bit of the Forest I see around me has changed during my short residence. The sheep have vanished, rather large trees have fallen down, and old photos of the area show that 'my' hill was nigh-on bald within living memory – though it is now covered with very large 40 plus year-old ash and beech trees. 'My' hill also retains the remains of a dozen or more cottages, most of which were homes until the 1960s. And it is hardly necessary to remind Review readers that 60 or so years ago the Forest was alive with mines, factories, ammunition dumps and military establishments.

'Preservatives' should realise that the Forest is a living entity. Most of it is just a farm with two crops: softwoods, which get harvested every 20 years or so, and hardwoods which get harvested every century or so. The 'good old days' when the aristocracy rode around hunting deer and boar are behind us, but the Forest evolves to match day to day requirements, be that extraction of coal or building stone or to satisfy other needs such as those of walkers or equestrians or cyclists. 

During the mining era the miners lived near the mines (and dozens of now-abandoned little footpaths trace their ways to work or to their local places of worship), so there can be no serious argument against rebuilding on currently derelict plots – which would, Forest-wide, allow for many hundreds of new homes, scattered around, in ones and twos, not in hideous vast new 'developments'. Similarly, building small new work-places on the sites of defunct mills seems reasonable to me. 

To the extent that the "Statutory Forest" is sacrosanct, is there any good reason why its guardians should not be permitted to relinquish a bit here or there – on the absolute requirement that they acquire matching acreage elsewhere? So that the acreage of the Forest remains unchanged, though the borders might vary over time?

I G Ellis seems to base many of his concerns about developments near Cinderford around traffic. What is the problem? The proposed college can easily be catered for by incorporating halls of residence for the non-local students on the campus and a block of smart apartments for the teaching staff. The industrial premises through the valley below Cinderford are ill-served by the present road system and a more convenient entry/exit would no doubt please many local residents as well as the employers and the drivers. Non-resident students and workers (and everyone else) could have most of their transport needs looked after by local community-centred mini-bus services in place of the current dysfunctional services.

Without in any way wishing to get involved in other people's feuds, I would agree that building large estates of homes without previously establishing workplaces for the residents and schools for their offspring—both within walking distance – (plus whatever is needed to process whatever passes through their plumbing) is just stupid. 

Don't despair, I G Ellis: just recognise that the Forest was a desert not that long ago—and will be a playground next year and maybe near-derelict in 2030 and the territory of tigers in 2050 – and can look after itself. 

– Clive Akerman, Central Lydbrook.