New Forest Notes: New campsites operator could be in for a ‘rather rough ride’

The New Forest’s camps were established in about 1970 when a vigorous and largely successful effort was made to control “wild camping” and unrestricted car access to almost all parts of the Forest. The Forestry Commission applied to the verderers for permission to set up these static camps and car parks throughout the Forest, and everyone – except the campers and off-road enthusiasts – gave a great sigh of relief and backed the application.

It was granted, perhaps without sufficient regard to the long-term implications, and the camps were developed over a couple of years. Those were the days when action could actually be taken without a decade or so of consultation and bureaucratic paper-pushing. Over the next 20 years a number of the smaller camps were closed down. They included Hincheslea, North Bentley, Pipers Wait, Pondhead and Holidays Hill.

The last of these was because so many of the ancient beech trees were having to be cut down to ensure campers’ safety, while other sites were having an unacceptable effect on the commoners’ grazing or were causing particular annoyance to local farms and residents.

Then, in 2006, came a bombshell as the Forestry Commission, without any local consultation, suddenly announced that it had leased the sites to a commercial operator retaining, I think, a minority interest in the business. The attitude of the Forest was supine in the extreme, with hardly a voice raised in protest at the time. I described some of the resulting problems in New Forest Notes of July last year, but things have moved on a long way since then.

It appears that the purported leasing was almost certainly invalid as it exceeded the powers of the landowner, and the absence of the verderers’ approval was a further flaw. Forestry England is now seeking a new operator, although it is not clear if this will be in the form of an exclusive licence holder or somebody working under contract for FE. Whoever it is, they are likely to be in for a rather rough ride to judge from the forceful views expressed in the Verderers’ Court last month, particularly by the Commoners’ Defence Association and the New Forest Association (A&T, 24th June).

The problem is the old one, which is now the dominant theme of local management, that public pressure has reached intolerable levels, dominating the commoners and their animals, ruining the natural beauty of the Forest and affecting some elements of its conservation importance. Right from the start 50 years ago the rot set in at such places as Hollands Wood where, year after year, fellings and mutilation of ancient trees took place to ensure the safety of campers and their vehicles.

The ground beneath the trees was stamped and rolled flat by thousands of visitors and by hundreds of cars and caravans. Buildings (of particularly miserable design) mushroomed and hundreds of metres of access tracks were built. In short, it became the equivalent of an over-used piece of urban parkland. In the early years of this century, it was earmarked for prompt closure, but nothing happened. It was presumably just too profitable.

In the same category were Longbeech camp at Fritham and Denny Wood south of Lyndhurst, both on ancient woodland sites and subject to safety fellings. Indeed, the necessity for such work was demonstrated by a serious accident involving a child at Denny.

It remains very unclear what Forestry England will do about these highly controversial sites. It will certainly be reluctant to relinquish the huge revenue they produce. Even if they agree to give up the worst offending sites, they will no doubt try to relocate them on other parts of the Forest.

That will not be easy because the potential exists for damage on or adjacent to almost every piece of FE-controlled land. Even if they are pushed beyond the boundary line on to private property, the pressure they exert on the Forest will remain immense. Everyone is going to have to stop talking about “Forest first” policies and actually do something instead. That is going to be expensive and unpopular with many users.

There is also the problem of grazing. There never was much in Hollands Wood, but places like Aldridge Hill and Ashurst Wood are much more productive areas, and such places see particular conflicts between visitors and grazing animals. Are these to remain in operation or is the traditional farming of the Forest to be restored to its former significant role?

Finally, there are the commercial interests of shopkeepers and other businesses. Many have become reliant on the trade which is effectively generated by having the equivalent of a small, temporary town established on their doorsteps for six months of the year. That should not be a deciding factor for those whose purpose is to protect the Forest, but it is yet another stick stirring a cauldron close to boiling point.

The photo above shows North Bentley camp when it opened 50 years ago, and below the same view today, after many years of closure.

Ice cream wars

Another very profitable licensing operation run by Forestry England is the hiring out of locations in the Forest for ice cream sales. Of course, the actual income from this is kept very quiet, but I have heard rumours of quite staggering sums.

Every two years FE applies to the verderers for consent to the granting of licences for such sales, but of course neither the court nor the commoners whose work it protects receives any of this income. This year licences were agreed for more than 20 locations including car parks and a number of campsites.

In 1997 the Forestry Commission attempted to grant permission for such sales at Balmer Lawn car park, without the court’s consent. This provoked a furious response from a nearby shop trader (who also happened to be a commoner) and resulted in a complaint to the ombudsman and a subsequent judgment of maladministration. I believe a substantial compensation payment was made to the trader.

The January application for permission was made to the verderers in committee, so of course the public had no opportunity to support or oppose the grant. One amendment was sought by the court and agreed in respect of sales at Stoney Cross. A longstanding danger to children and livestock resulting from roadside sales was removed by the relocation of the van to an adjacent car park, but otherwise the proposals were passed more or less without discussion. That, in retrospect, was a mistake.

Last month the verderers received a complaint from a Lyndhurst shopkeeper that a newly installed ice cream van at Bolton’s Bench was having a very adverse effect on his trade in the village High Street, only a few minutes’ walk away (A&T, 25th June). There, as he pointed out, the shopkeepers pay rates, rent and all other expenses of a fixed business while the mobile van operates free of such burdens, merely paying Forestry England for use of the site. This “new” Lyndhurst site was apparently added to the list because another at Hatchet Pond had been shut down because of “ecological sensitivity”.

I have to say that it is difficult not to feel sympathy for the hard-pressed Lyndhurst trader, but his request that the verderers should rescind their consent is quite beyond their powers. In any case, the court must judge such matters on the net effect that the vans have on the Forest and not how they may affect trade. Still, I think the point was well made by the complainant and future licence applications of this type are likely to be given publicity and wider discussion before they are decided. I fully expect to see him again in January 2024.

Too much talk

As I listened to a variety of presentments in the Verderers’ Court last month, I reflected that I must have heard close on 1,500 such addresses over the years. That, I thought, was not bad going, but then up stepped Brian Ingram, the retired head agister. I quickly realised that my total was poor compared to his. The minute books tell me that he was appointed as agister towards the end of 1959, 13 years before I joined the court. He must have heard not far short of 2,000 presentments since that time because he has remained a regular attendant at the open courts since his retirement. His contribution in June was short and to the point, and that is the essence of a good presentment.

Over the years the verderers have heard from learned people weighed down by sheaves of densely typed papers, whose orations were restrained only by the rule that addresses must be limited to five minutes. They seem to believe that the more complex and technical their statement, the more impressed the verderers will be and the more chance they have of influencing policy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The person who comes to the ancient dock with two paragraphs of well thought-out presentment immediately grabs the court’s attention, but the man who follows him with complex and lengthy references to a sub-section of one of the New Forest Acts is unlikely to make much headway. Of course, it may be necessary to give such references, but that can be done in writing to the clerk. There is no need to bore the entire room to death.

Perhaps there should be a qualification added to the opening announcement which runs: “Those who have any presentment to make or matter or thing to do at this court of verderers, let them come forward and they shall be heard” – the qualification being, “briefly and within reason”.