Cramie Burn, Glen Prosen ©R Webb CC BY SA 2.0
Cramie Burn, Glen Prosen ©R Webb CC BY SA 2.0
Recently, Forest & Land Scotland (FLS) bought the Glen Prosen estate. Many people felt that the purchase was lacked transparency. The price paid was a secret until Liam Kerr spilled the beans and there was no indication as to how the land will be used; natural regeneration vs. planting, native trees vs. commercial species, etc. NEMT sent the following letter to the Minister.
Dear Ms McAllan,
I am writing on behalf of the North East Mountain Trust (NEMT) and also as a constituent of Audrey Nicoll (hence copied). You may know that NEMT is a voluntary body (Scottish Charity SCIO 008783) based in the Grampian area, representing hill-goers and those who enjoy visiting Scotland's finest natural heritage. NEMT membership, comprising both individual members and twelve hillwalking and climbing clubs, totals about 1000 people.
This purchase is stated to have been in the "public interest". Our members agree that, in principle, given the right management, this could be the case. However, use of the term "public interest" implies wider consultation and multiple objectives.
Consultation
- Why was the local community not involved with the purchase?
- Given that this purchase was described as an "enormous strategic opportunity for Scottish Government objectives" why were other "communities of interest" such as relevant NGOs not consulted?
We do not believe that, with careful consideration, some, possibly limited, consultation could have been carried out while preserving commercial confidentiality.
Multiple Objectives
- Given the Parliamentary Answer on 19/1/23, that part of the rationale for purchase was the opportunity to undertake habitat restoration, why can we not see the outline plans? Surely, the Scottish Government doesn't spend £17.6M without some idea of how they propose to use the land!
- Why do FLS only refer to commercial planting and harvesting?
- One of the stated objectives of the Scottish Government is to further the agenda of land reform. Is this purchase not helping to drive up the price of this type of land, putting future sales further beyond local communities?
With regards
We received the following reply.
Dear Mr Windle
Thank you for your email dated 8th February 2023, addressed to Ms McAllan MSP, raising your concerns on behalf of the North East Mountain Trust (NEMT) regarding the purchase of Glenprosen Estate by Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS). Ms McAllan has passed your enquiry to FLS to respond.
FLS is the Scottish Government agency responsible for looking after Scotland's national forests and land. It is incumbent on FLS to manage these resources in such a way as to maximise environmental, biodiversity and social benefits.
I have attempted to answer the questions you raised in your correspondence below:
Consultation
Why was the local community not involved with the purchase?
Given that this purchase was described as an "enormous strategic opportunity for Scottish Government objectives", why were other "communities of interest" such as relevant NGOs not consulted?
To answer both these points together - FLS, along with other invited bidders, was asked to sign a legally binding non-disclosure agreement. To refuse to sign this, or risk disclosure by any limited consultation, would have risked losing both this opportunity and future acquisition opportunities. As FLS always consult with relevant stakeholders during the development of a land Management Plan, FLS considered the primary object was to secure the estate into public ownership and then undertake the consultation process.
Additionally, this was a competitive situation with a limited time window to prepare and submit a bid for the estate. This was not an unusual situation for FLS, who are well used to making professionally-backed decisions and then consulting with stakeholders once an acquisition has been secured.
Given the Parliamentary Answer on 19/1/23, that part of the rationale for purchase was the opportunity to undertake habitat restoration, why can we not see the outline plans? Surely the Scottish Government (SG) doesn't spend £17.6M without some idea of how they propose to use the land!
The outline plans in the decision-making process were preliminary, based on limited information available at the time. An estate of this size is complex and therefore plans will be developed as part of the Land management Plan process, which will undertake more in-depth analysis, investigation and consultation to determine the best outcome.
Why does FLS only refer to commercial planting and harvesting?
FLS has not referred to only commercial planting and harvesting during any correspondence relating to Glenprosen. As has previously been stated, the estate has the potential for the creation of approximately 2000 hectares of woodland, making a significant contribution to the SG's woodland creation target and/or the target for native woodland creation as set out in the Bute House Agreement. In addition it has the potential for peatland restoration and/or significant habitat restoration opportunities.
One of the stated objectives of the Scottish Government is to further the agenda of land reform. Is this purchase not helping to drive up the price of this type of land, putting future sales further beyond local communities?
Land values are rising due to the high levels of demand from a range of organisations interested in acquiring land for various objectives. The price paid was based on professional input advice, which in turn was backed by comparable market evidence. We have a strong track record on Community engagement and believe that by bringing the land into public ownership, we are increasing improving the opportunities for conversations with local communities to explore potential deliverable benefits.
I trust you will find this response helpful.
Yours sincerely
The reply reveals two points of interest:
The consolation is that the letter/reply will have been logged, sensitising Ministers to the issue of future forest plans, which has got to be a good thing.
The sale generated two Parliamentary Questions (p52). These are summarised in the section on Parliamentary Questions.
Please let the webmaster know if there are problems with viewing these pages or with the links they contain.