I HAVE no wish to get into any distracting mud–slinging match with Cllr Morgan over his 'Slagging' comments (Review front page, although perhaps the derogatory word 'slagging' maybe one of yours), I wouldn't think any educated councillor would use a nasty word such as this.

The main thing the so–called 'detractors' of this illegal invasion of the statuary Forest of Dean wish to point out, is, how the planners and the Forestry Commission are disgracefully manipulating the laws governing this ancient and unique area to achieve there own ends.

Cllr Morgan would have you believe that this is just an old clay pit and a brownfield area. Well it used to be, but, it was and still is part of the Statuary Forest. So back some years ago the council went cap in hand to the Governments' Department of the Environment, who opened up the public purse to the tune of around a half a million pounds (probable a million or two in today's money) to reclaim and landscape the greater part of this area and turn it into a wetland park with the undertaking that the public would have freedom of access. So here they are once again wanting to spend another 10 or more million. (We know where this reckless use of public money has led us).

My understanding is that thanks to the exemption in the 1981 Act the only land that should be disposed of or exchanged in the Statuary Forest is land acquired by the Minister under section 39 of the Forestry Act 1967 and no such land as been acquired. None of the Forest of Dean was acquired this way, it was all there before the act came into being and in any case if land could be legally taken out, it could only be land not suitable or needed for forestry, and an equal amount of more suitable replacement land would have to be provided in exchange, thereby maintain its area.

The council aim to do this by offering the Forestry Commission the southern part of the Linear Park which the council mysteriously seems to have somehow previously managed to acquire. Of course this would not make up the area it wants to take, so, as I see it, here's the manipulative way they aim to get around it.

The proposed new road: Ah, ah say the council, "that will still be owned by the Forestry Commission", and the buildings etc? "well we only want the actual land the buildings stand on, the bits in between will still belong to the Forestry Commission"(e.g. Statuary Forest). I give you an  example, I want to buy a field off you, but I say, I only want to buy the bits that my sheds will stand on, not all the other bits in between you can keep that, I think I know what you might say.

And so the people who care about the preservation of this Forest, its rights and customs need to be bullied, browbeaten and sneered at. Calling them names might cause a distraction from the real issue. But as a wise old sheep badger representing the Commoners pointed out at a meeting last week (a meeting where the council tried to justify their action), if you keep taking a big bite of the cherry one day you might break your teeth on the stone.

– I G. Ellis, Lower Milkwall