since Thursday, November 05, 1998 01:25 AM
Sandy Howat
Land Reform Policy Group Secretariat
Room 133 Pentland House
47 Robb’s Loan EDINBURGH EH14

Dear Mr Howat

I am enclosing my individual response to the second consultation paper from the Land Reform Policy Working Group. I am also sending a copy by email in html format, in case that is any use.

In response to the following specific questions:
11.1 Do you agree with the vision set out in Chapter 3? Yes, particularily the emphasis on diversity and community involvement.

 I am in general agreement with the group's provisional view on most options, but as is clearly indicated in the attached detailed comments, I am disappointed that the group has not decided more bravely on taxation matters.

11.2 Of the various options set out in Chapters 4 to 9 which might help deliver this vision, which should be included in recommendations for early legislation by the Scottish Parliament on land reform?It is my considered and strongly held opinion that the empowerment of localities to raise revenue locally through Land Valuation Taxation (LVT) or 'community ground rent' is the single most important step which can be taken to correct many of the present imbalances. If only one option could be acted upon, LO7 would be the one, but NOT if the revenues are to be 'round-tripped' through central government.

The next most important options, beyond doubt, involve decisive action to make public bodies accountable and actively participative at the most local levels (LO13 & LU11) (or to abolish them totally in favour of community ownership, which is the local manifestation of public ownership.) The letter appended to my response is a stark illustration of the present situation. This is a very deeply ingrained cultural matter, and is not restricted to rural matters. I fear it may well require more than mere 'ministerial guidance.'

May I congratulate the working group, yourself, and all involved on an excellent and very worthwhile exercise. We will all look forward to the emergence of policy and legislation to implement the vision. May it be a long-term vision.

Sincerely, Ed Iglehart

The Scottish Office Consultation
Land Reform Policy Group
Identifying The Solutions

With Respondent's comments added

Respondent: Edward Scott Iglehart
North Glen, Palnackie
DG7 1PN
Individual, Landowner (resident), Small business proprietor, Pedestrian,
member of several community groups, woodland groups and environmental organisations
3.2 The responses to the first consultation paper provide the basis for working up this general objective into a more detailed vision of the patterns of land ownership and land use which would be most likely to support such sustainable development in the future. The key themes of this emerging vision are:
  • increased diversity in the way land is owned and used, as the best way of dealing with damage to the local community or environment which can result from monopoly ownership, and of encouraging the fullest possible exploitation of rural development opportunities; and
  • increased community involvement in the way land is owned and used, so as to ensure that local people are not excluded from decisions which affect their lives and the lives of their communities.
It is difficult to find fault with the above themes. I would substitute "actively involved in" or even "pro-actively involved in" for "not excluded from", above, as it would possibly imply a greater degree of empowerment. As indicated in my responses to the earlier paper and the rural development paper, it will be difficult to achieve the desirable (and necessary) degree of local involvement, due to consultation fatigue, cynicism, etc. This is not to say it is not worthwhile, rather to acknowledge the effort required through locally sourced animateurs, etc.
3.3 The Group has translated this into the following vision for the future:
  • more local involvement, greater commitment and accountability by private landowners in rural Scotland;
    Land Value Taxation!
  • more scope for community ownership and/OR management of local land where this can be sustainable;
  • more scope for releasing land for housing and local development where this is sustainable and secures the retention and if possible the expansion of fragile rural communities;
    All of the above!
  • more scope for smallholdings supporting a wide range of land-based and other economic activity where this is sustainable and secures the retention and if possible the expansion of fragile rural communities;
    Very important, and not to be exclusively land-based!
  • about the same level of ownership by public bodies, but with more local involvement and accountability and more employment of local people;
    The goal should be as near as possible to local CONTROL of management for public holdings
  • more local involvement and accountability and more employment of local people by non-Governmental organisations who own land in rural Scotland;
    If the above goal is implemented, NGOs would be more easily persuaded to follow suit.
  • outdated and unfair feudal arrangements swept away;
  • conditionality of land ownership where appropriate to reflect modern circumstances;
  • a more constructive approach to problem cases, including those relating to the foreshore and the seabed;
  • more definitive information readily available about land ownership;
  • more broad-brush information readily available about land ownership;
  • more information readily available about beneficial owners;
  • more information readily available about public support relating to land;
    ALL of the above!
  • better integration of policy for rural land use at national level;
    May work against diversity of approach...
  • more integrated planning of rural land use at local level;
    How local is local? Local authorities are too big.
  • more community involvement in decisions about rural land use;
    DEFINITELY! With particular reference to Public Land!
  • more public access on a responsible basis;
    No rights without responsibility!
  • more scope for diversity of agricultural tenancy arrangements;
  • simpler and cheaper arrangements for resolution of disputes between agricultural tenants and their landlords;
  • wider opportunities for tenant farmers to diversify;
  • greater protection for those who own property built on leased land;
  • more sustainable crofting communities;
  • more local involvement in and accountability for crofting administration;
  • much simplified crofting legislation and administration;
  • more (or at least not fewer) active crofters;
  • undertaking a wider range of land-based and other economic activity rather than predominantly agriculture.
    All of the above!
10 Summary of Options
10.1 Here is a summary of the options assessed in Chapters 4 to 9:
Land ownership

Vision for the future

Possible legislation and other action to achieve this

Provisional view
Respondent's comments

More local involvement, greater commitment and accountability by private landowners in rural Scotland LO1 Encourage private owners to be more locally accountable and to be available or have accessible local representation Probably yes
Agree, with particular emphasis on linking public assistance to compliance with code of practice
LO2 Introduce time for the assessment of the public interest in strategic sales Probably yes
Agree, and applaud reference to community planning process - the more local, the better!
LO3 Make more explicit Government support for use of compulsory purchase powers as a last resort to acquire land where this will assist implementation of local plans or other strategies Probably yes
Agree
LO4 Regulate all (or major) land sales Probably not
Agree
LO5 Abolish national non-domestic rate relief on sporting estates
This amounts to a tax on (and potential impediment to) improvement.		 Maybe
This should be considered as linked to LO6 & LO7.
LO6 Reduce or abolish national non-domestic rate relief on agriculture and forestry
This amounts to a tax on (and potential impediment to) improvement.		 Maybe but not yet
This should be considered as linked to LO5 & LO7.
LO7 Introduce land value taxation
It is interesting that a reduction in land prices is counted as an advantage under LO5, but a disadvantage under LO7...

Any taxation would ideally be locally (community level, with advice) determined and revenues would accrue locally, enhancing local accountability and empowerment.
Taxation on 'bare land' value would not discourage improvement, but could take account of locational value and increases in value due to infrastructure and other publicly funded improvements.		 Maybe but not yet
While recognising the difficulties and complexity of establishing a system of valuation for taxation purposes, I believe this option should be pursued with the greatest possible dispatch. It would correct the ludicrous status quo, where ownership of land confers a right to draw on the public purse, without any corresponding obligation to contribute to that purse. (see general comments)
More scope for community ownership and management of local land where this can be sustainable LO8 Provide advice and support (including an enhanced Land Fund) for those considering community ownership or management Probably yes
Agree.
LO9 Introduce community right to buy at market value Probably not
The need for (and cost of) this might be substantially reduced, if taxation measures reduce the general level of 'market value'
More scope for releasing land for housing and local development where this is sustainable and secures the retention and if possible the expansion of fragile rural communities LO10 Streamline compulsory purchase powers to make acquisition of key sites as a last resort more effective where this will assist imple-mentation of local plans or other strategies Probably yes following review
Agree, linked to LO3 & LO11
More scope for smallholdings supporting a wide range of land-based and other economic activity where this is sustainable and secures the retention and if possible the expansion of fragile rural communities LO11 Buy land on the open market for transfer to smallholders Probably yes
An interesting idea, which should be applied in the first instance to land already publicly owned, where appropriate. With particular reference to Forestry Commission holdings, the establishment of smallholdings in forest land, coupled with a duty of care and maintenance has great potential.
LO12 Introduce compulsory leasing of land Probably not
Agree
About the same level of ownership by public bodies, but with more local involvement and accountability and more employment of local people LO13 Issue guidance letters from Ministers to public bodies to require community involvement in management of all public estates and to maximise employment of local people
Respectfully suggest:
1. For any publicly owned asset, the prime consideration of development policy shall be local benefit.
2. For any publicly owned asset, development policy shall be decided and implemented by bodies on which local residents constitute a clear majority. 		Probably yes
This seems rather 'wet', unless stated as suggested. Public bodies are at present somewhat less than 'model landowners'. 'Community involvement' should aim to mean MAJORITY say in all management of local public lands. Maximum employment of local people will follow naturally from this. (see attached general comments)
LO14 Encourage increased Crown Estate accountability in Scotland Probably yes
Agree. Crown Estates are at present far better than some other 'public bodies'
More local involvement and accountability and more employment of local people by non-Governmental organisations who own land in rural Scotland LO15 Encourage non-Governmental organisations to secure community involvement and employment of local people Probably yes
This will sound hollow indeed if 'public bodies' continue to dance to the tune of central government. (see attached general comments)
Law reform

Vision for the future

Possible legislation and other action to achieve this

Outdated and unfair feudal arrangements swept away Scottish Law Commission will bring forward proposals for feudal reform

Scottish Law Commission has brought forward proposals for leasehold casualty reform

Conditionality of land ownership where appropriate to reflect modern circum-stances Scottish Law Commission will bring forward proposals for reform of real burdens
A more constructive approach to problem cases, including those relating to the foreshore and the seabed Scottish Law Commission to be invited to review and revise law of the foreshore and seabedInformation about land
Information about Land

Vision for the future

Possible legislation and other action to achieve this

Provisional view
Respondent's comments
More definitive information readily available about land ownership INF1 Require all holdings above given size to be registered in the Land Register, regardless of change in ownership Probably yes in the longer term
Agree
INF2 Provide incentives for voluntary registration Maybe but not yet
When practicable, should be done
INF3 Make access to public assistance conditional on registration Probably yes but not yet
As soon as practicable
More broad-brush information readily available about land ownership INF4 Produce map-based (non-authoritative) information on land holdings based on information from the Register of Sasines, by combining and publishing all existing data held by public bodies, including relevant public utilities (unless of particular sensitivity), and encouraging rural landowners to assist by providing information about their holdings Probably yes
As soon as practicable
INF5 Extend current ScotLIS (Scottish Land Information Service) project to include all public body datasets including those of relevant public utilities Probably yes if pilot successful
As soon as practicable
More information readily available about beneficial owners INF6 Introduce a power to investigate beneficial ownership of land Maybe
Why only 'maybe'? It is ludicrous that such information is difficult or impossible to obtain. As a minimum, such information should be required as part of any code of practice.
More information readily available about public support relating to land INF7 Make existing information on recipients of public assistance available Probably yes so far as possible
Agree, to maximum extent possible
INF8 Make provision of public assistance conditional on agreement for information on such assistance to be made public Probably yes so far as possibleLand use
Agree, to maximum extent possible
Land Use

Vision for the future

Possible legislation and other action to achieve this

Provisional view
Respondent's comments
Better integration of policy for rural land use at national level LU1 Improve co-ordination of activity between public bodies responsible for conservation of the natural and cultural heritage, environmental, agricultural and other land use matters Probably yes
This has dangers of producing the effect of a centrist cartel of state agencies. see General comments
LU2 Clarify and streamline public assistance and its objectives to achieve desirable land use Probably yes so far as possible
Same comment as for LU1, above. See also General comments
LU3 Make existing public assistance supporting land uses such as agriculture, forestry and conservation more user-friendly Probably yes so far as possible
See also General comments
LU4 Introduce a code of practice on rural land use Probably yes
Such a code should be developed with majority input from truly rural sources, not developed within double-glazed urban offices!
LU5 Make provision of public assistance conditional on land uses such as agriculture, forestry, sporting and conservation being consistent with the code of practice Probably yes so far as possible
Agree, but only subject to the observations above on the source of the code of practice.
More integrated planning of rural land use at local level LU6 Use rural development strategies to deal with rural land use on an integrated basis Probably yes
Rural development strategies should be influenced by national priorities and expertise, but dominated by local priorities (change of emphasis from comments under 'overall assessment')
LU7 Regulate local land use through local land councils Probably not
While not wishing to see any additional regulatory bodies, this respondent is suspicious of the abilities and biases of 'local authorities'.
LU8 Make provision of public assistance conditional on rural land use being consistent with rural development strategies Probably yes so far as possible
Agree, but with reference to the comments on LU6, above.
LU9 Extend planning control to agricultural, forestry, sporting and conservation-related developments Probably yes: consider scope and definition
Agree, but with reservations expressed above (LU6 & LU7)
LU10 Provide for stronger enforcement of deer control measures Probably yes
Agree
More community involvement in decisions about rural land use LU11 Require all public land owners to develop land management plans in consultation with the local community Probably yes
'Consultation' is hardly enough! Communities should develop management plans for local public holdings in consultation with the relevant public bodies - the other way round!
LU12 Make provision of public assistance to landowners/tenants conditional on them consulting the community about the activities for which they are seeking assistance Probably yes so far as possible
Agree
More public access on a responsible basis Scottish Natural Heritage will bring forward proposals for reform Yes to widest possible pedestrian access! But no rights without responsibilities! Landowners should be protected against court actions for damages to members of the public resulting from ignorance of, disregard of, or unfamiliarity with the nature of agricultural and other land-use practices. Factory and workshop operators would not be expected to accept a general public right of access without similar considerations, and neither should those who use the land as their place of work!
Landlord and tenant

Vision for the future

Possible legislation and other action to achieve this

Provisional view
Respondent's comments
More scope for diversity of agricultural tenancy arrangements LT1 Introduce farm business tenancies as in the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 in England and Wales Probably not
Agree
LT2 Abolish the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 for new tenancies Probably not
Agree
LT3 Amend the 1991 Act to provide for limited duration tenancies, to include specific provisions to control the use of limited partnerships, and to reduce the restrictions on using short-term lets Probably yes
Agree
LT4 Introduce a right for secure tenants to buy their farms, including a provision to enable smallholders or tenants to acquire ownership of their farm buildings, and a right of pre-emptive purchase by the tenant when sale by the landowner is in prospect Maybe in particular circumstances
Agree, support right of pre-emptive purchase on sale.
Simpler and cheaper arrangements for resolution of disputes between agricultural tenants and their landlords LT5 Simplify the arbitration procedures, introducing stricter controls over the cost of arbitrations, and appointing a smaller, more experienced arbiters’ panel, with more training and general guidance Probably yes
Agree
LT6 Extend the role of the Scottish Land Court (SLC) to cover appointment of arbiters, providing for all stated cases to go to the SLC, and introduce stricter time limits Probably yes
Agree
Wider opportunities for tenant farmers to diversify LT7 Introduce a statutory provision into new leases to permit wider diversification, and provide model forms of agreement for tenants to obtain landowners’ consent Probably yes
Agree
LT8 Amend the existing provisions for resumption and efficient farming to permit operation on a part-time basis Probably yes
Agree
LT9 Provide greater protection for tenants against resumption by landlords for non-agricultural land uses by restricting the operation of notices to quit and amending the rules of relevant public assistance schemes Probably yes
Agree
LT10 Introduce rights for tenants/ crofters to plant trees, to cut and sell timber, and to derive income from farm woodlands, and provide a clear and fair framework for payment of compensation at waygo Probably yes
Agree strongly
LT11Amend the statutory rules of good husbandry to encourage management for nature conservation Probably yes
Agree strongly
LT12 Introduce a pre-emption right for agricultural tenants to acquire vacant sporting leases Maybe in particular circumstances
Agree. Support pre-emption at sale.
LT13 Strengthen farm tenants’ rights to compensation for game damage and in respect of mineral developments Probably yes

Agree
LT14 Introduce provision for landlords and tenants to share the royalties in respect of mineral developments Maybe
Agree with low priority.
Greater protection for those who own property built on leased land LT15 Introduce legislation to provide security of tenure and rights of access plus mechanism for setting rents and for settling other disputes Maybe
Agree with low priority.
Crofting

Vision for the future

Possible legislation and other action to achieve this

Provisional view
Respondent's comments
It should be noted that the respondent has no direct knowledge or experience of crofting, and the comments are based on commonsense and natural justice.
More sustainable crofting communities CR1 Give all crofting communities the right to take control of the land Probably yes
Agree
CR2 Encourage more community management of croft land Probably yes
Agree
CR3 Ensure there is no bias against newcomers in crofting administration Probably yes
Agree, but perceive dangers of price escalation if role of Crofters Commission is severely reduced as proposed under CR8,CR9, CR10, & CR11
CR4 Create new crofts Maybe in particular circumstances
Agree
CR5 Extend crofting tenure to other parts of Scotland Maybe in particular circumstances
Consideration should be given to how 'forest crofts' in areas outwith the crofting counties might be used in cunjunction with or as alternative to the creation of smallholdings referred to under LO11, above.
More local involvement in and accountability for crofting administration CR6 Transfer responsibility for crofting regulation to local authorities Maybe
A BAD idea!
CR7 Devolve significant crofting regulation responsibilities to local communities Maybe
A MUCH BETTER idea! It is interesting that 'different approaches in different areas' is counted a DISadvantage, considering the group's espousal of a diversity of approach!
Much simplified crofting legislation and administration CR8 End control over subdivision Probably yes
Agree strongly
CR9 Simplify controls over subletting Probably yes
Agree, noting that what seems to be proposed is ending of controls, rather than 'simplification'
CR10 Simplify control over most assignations and reduce control over relets Maybe
Agree, noting that it may be dangerous to end controls, rather than 'simplify'
CR11 Reduce Crofters Commission involvement in succession matters Probably yes
Agree
More (or at least not fewer) active crofters CR12 More rigorous action on absent-eeism by Crofters Commission Probably yes
Agree, but it might be better done at community level, where practical.
CR13 Restrict the size of multiple tenancy holdings Probably not
It should be noted that this assessment is based on 'existing controls', a number of which are proposed for modification or abolition under CR8, CR9, CR10, & CR11.
CR14 Reduce scope for resumption and decrofting of croft land Probably yes
Agree. It should be noted that this assessment is based on 'existing controls', a number of which are proposed for modification or abolition under CR8, CR9, CR10, & CR11. It would also appear to be linked to CR15.
CR15 End or modify right to buy croft or croft house and garden ground Probably not
Agree reluctantly, for the reasons cited in the overall assessment. Action under CR14 will probably suffice.
Undertaking a wider range of land-based and other economic activity rather than predominantly agriculture CR16 Decouple link between crofting grants and agricultural production Probably yes
Agree strongly!

 

general comments
From Scottish Office: Identifying the solutions 4.1:
"many landowners and particularly land agents expressed doubts about the propriety of public funding going to benefit a small number of individuals and about the longer-term financial viability of some/all of such ventures"

This is a bit rich, coming from those who constitute 'a small number of individuals', already in receipt of considerable public
funding!

From Scottish Office Identifying the solutions 9.1:
"However, many land agents and landowners were concerned that smallholdings and crofts could not be sustainable and would be dependent on subsidy;"

The irony is too rich to believe! Are they proposing to discontinue present subsidies to farming and forestry, which are demonstrably un-sustainable and totally dependent on subsidy?

Taxation

While recognising the difficulties and complexity of establishing a system of valuation for taxation purposes, I believe the option of Land Valuation Taxation (LVT) should be pursued with the greatest possible dispatch.

LVT would correct the ludicrous status quo, where ownership of land confers a right to draw on the public purse, without any corresponding obligation to contribute to that purse. The attitude engendered by the status quo is revealed in the opinions of existing landowning interests referred to above.

Any taxation would ideally be locally (community level, with advice) determined and revenues would accrue locally, enhancing local accountability and empowerment. It is most undesirable for LVT to become a revenue channelled through central government. Neither should central government be unduly prescriptive as to levels and bases, e.g. a 'Uniform Scottish' rate of levy.

Taxation on 'bare land' value would not discourage improvement, but could take account of locational value and increases in value due to infrastructure and other publicly funded improvements.

I hope I represent a section of the landowning interest (not exclusive to rural Scotland but including many urban and suburban owner-occupiers (one of the declared principles in the 'framework' paper)). We are those who accept that the value of the land on which we live and/or from which we derive our living, our 'homeplace', is in no small way related to "neighbourhood" value, and that it is quite reasonable and desirable to contribute to the cost of increasing and maintaining such value.

If this local value is to be enhanced in a sustainable way, it will most likely be that it occurs organically. That is, from the roots, according to our local nature.

The rural development paper (Scottish Office: The Framework) as well as the present subject cite the need for and value of variety (Indeed it is another of the declared principles). This is related to Biodiversity. It is, in fact, properly only a subset of Biodiversity. More distant levels of government might wisely restrict their contribution (via an integrated approach, yet another of the declared principles) to nourishment, rather than to genetic engineering.

Locally raised taxation, without a round trip through central government, at levels determined by locally accountable and locally elected community members would ensure an increased and natural diversity of empowered communities.

In the short term, continued nourishment (central funding) will be required, but the long term goal here, as everywhere, must be sustainability.

This implies reduced income taxes, and a contribution more relative to value(benefit) enjoyed.

It is interesting that a reduction in land prices is counted as an advantage under LO5, but a disadvantage under LO7...

It is certain that the introduction of Land Value Taxation (LVT) will reduce land prices.

It is also certain that it will be vigorously resisted by those whose net worth (and borrowing!) is based on the value/price of
their land.

The effect on us, the fortunate, for whom our land (however small or vast) is our homeplace, will be negligible. House prices may decline, but a HOME is rarely for sale.

For those still in search of a home, and those yet to be born, decreases in land prices will be empowering indeed.
Isn't that the task in hand?

Involvement

In order to increase the active involvement of local people (The final main principle declared in the 'framework' paper), with our local natural environment, it is necessary that we recognise a proprietary interest:

a. It is our common heritage, and we ignore, damage or destroy it at our peril.

b. Our interest, being local and potentially intimate, is not identical to that of absentee proprietors, whether individuals or agencies of 'public' ownership.

c. A community is the local manifestation of "the public", and as such, has a vital interest in the sustainable management of its local environment, including both public and private land.

d. With rare exceptions, local benefit (social, economic, amenity, environmental health...) must become the prime consideration in environmental management policy, including land use, and particularly in the case of publicly owned assets.

e. It is a source of great social & economic value, THE source, Our home! Above all, we must not allow ourselves to feel intimidated or excluded from full and active participation through lack of 'expertise.'

f. The management of environmental assets, including forest, is likely to be best done through the direct involvement of persons and/or communities resident in the immediate locality.

g. In the case of private land, resident owners offer the best assurance of good management practice.

h. Where work is to be carried out, it is most likely to be well done by suitably qualified local workers.

i. The provision of local employment is a valid goal of environmental management, even when this may not be the quickest or least expensive in money terms.

j. Good management decisions are more important than quick or easy ones. Forests are rarely in a hurry, especially when managed under principles of sustainability.

k. The prime source of fertility and health in soil is forest cover. For this reason and others, it is important to restore more of Scotland's depleted native forests to renew soils depleted by millennia of overgrazing and decades of monoculture.

l. "All of us are committed to the idea that public access to a healthy, diverse landscape, including forest is the foundation of a positive relationship to the natural environment."
On Integration, Consolidation, Reorganisation, etc...
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganised.
I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralisation."
Caius Petronius, AD 66

With the benefit of a almost two further millennia hindsight, your respondent would only add "delay", the bureaucrat's universal friend.

Central Government Agency staff are far too often charged with the care of disparate sites and projects so widely scattered that it is difficult, if not impossible, to become properly intimate with many of them. Many try very hard.

In Central Government Agency culture, environmental assets (including 'communities') are most conveniently dealt with in the abstract, with reference to the details contained in filing cabinets (or magnetic cyberfiles) - at arm's length. Site visits seem rare and even more rarely to involve the carrying out of practical work. Resident care may be exceeding rare. Documents abound and their number multiplies in direct relation to the distance (in miles as well as organisational tiers) between central office and the local asset.

Central Government Agencies generally operate to priorities, policies, & agendas generated and developed at national level, with varying degrees of 'adaptation' to local conditions. 'National' thinking is predominately urban/office/document based. The career structure is largely colonial, with movement towards the centre regarded as advancement.

It is questionable how this can relate to rural realities.

Text of letter received November 3rd 1998: Is this the shape of consultation to come??
(Comments added)
Mr. E Igglehart, South West Community Woods, North Glen, Palnackie, Castle Douglas, DG7 1 PN

Ref: AD2
2nd November 1998

Dear Sir

DELIVERY OF FOREST ENTERPRISE SERVICES IN GALLOWAY

I write to you as a 'stakeholder' in the activities of the Forest Enterprise arm of the Forestry Commission, to explain our planned organisational changes in the Stewartry and Ayrshire. These are designed to improve our focus on the different types of forests and the aspirations of local people in south west Scotland. (Were local people asked? This is the first we have heard of it!)

Until two years ago the Forestry Commission forests of the Solway, Galloway Forest Park and in the southern part of Ayrshire were managed from three Forest District offices.

To enhance our effectiveness in Galloway Forest Park, the Ayrshire forests were joined with those of the Stewartry and have been managed from our office in Castle Douglas since 1996. These arrangements, and our continuing outstation office at Straiton, have been such a success that we now propose further to reorganise our arrangements as follows: (Can you run that by me one more time?...It's working so well, you want to turn it inside-out?)

The Solway forests around Dalbeattie and west towards Kirkudbright will be managed together with Mabie from Ae, Dumfries. (distance between forest and office: status quo: 11km max; proposed: 40km minimum)

The forests around Gatehouse of Fleet, Laurieston, Corsock, New Galloway and Dundeugh will form part of a new Galloway Forest District based at the existing office at Newton Stewart. This includes The Bennan, Fleet and Clatteringshaws forests. (distance between forest and office: status quo: 15-25km max; proposed: 25-50+km )

Carrick forest of south and east Ayrshire, including the woodlands around Loch Doon, will be managed from our existing Straiton office as part of the Galloway Forest District.

Kyle forest, to the north and east of Dalmellington, will be managed from Straiton as part of a new forest district encompassing the Scottish coalfields.

We hope to be able to demonstrate over the coming months that our staff will be able to focus more clearly on the market and social benefits of the distinct forests in the three areas concerned.

The present intention is that the new Galloway Forest District, which will manage the whole of Galloway Forest Park, will start work in April 1999. Dalbeattie Town Wood (to be managed from 41km distance - some 'town wood'!) and the other Solway forests (even further away) will join with Mabie to be managed from Ae from the same date, whereas the local presence in Ayrshire at Straiton will be strengthened. The Castle Douglas Office will finally move to Newton Stewart during September 1999. (i.e. removed from the heart of the most forested area to its periphery)

These changes will not involve much upheaval for most of our staff (One gets used to it pretty quickly, working for a distant colonial power!)as they will not need to move home.(this time) Although there will not be an office in Castle Douglas we will still be 'on the ground' and, of course, contactable at Newton Stewart.

We will operate on the basis of 'business as usual' up to and after the changes in April next year. You should not notice much difference in your dealings with us, except that the teams concerned will be able to concentrate more on 'your kind' of forests. (For the life of me, I cannot see how this follows, or what is meant!)

If you have any comments or suggestions I would be pleased to hear from you at any time at the above address.

Yours faithfully

Michael Wall
Forest District Manager

If this is the shape of increased community involvement to come,
God help us!
Observations
 Please note: The above observations are my own, influenced by experience, reading, listening, conversation and correspondence with others. My experience is limited in all areas, and some generalisations may seem sweeping, or even presumptuous. No offence to corporate entity, human or otherwise is intended, but should any be taken, it is from myself and no other. - E.I. visitors since Jan 8th 1999