Editing Forestry Commission (section)

===The Forestry Commission's social concern===

Integral to the Acland Report of 1916, which led to the setting up of the Forestry Commission immediately after the war, was the wider social concern.<ref>Jan-Willem Oosthoek, The Logic of British Forest Policy, 1919-1970, Paper presented at the 3rd Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, 2000; [[Alfred Gordon Clark|Charles Gordon Clark]], Forestry Commission social policy as illustrated by Brecon (later Brycheiniog) Forest, in Brycheiniog, The Journal of the Brecknock Society, vol. XLV 2014</ref> Large areas of upland Britain, it pointed out, were 'waste' and depopulated, and trees would not only increase their productiveness but 'demanded a higher rural population' than sheep rearing. They envisaged that 'the small holdings will be grouped together on the best land within or near the forests so as to economise labour in the working of the holdings, ... and to provide an ample supply of ... labour for [forestry] work. Families settled on new holdings in forest areas will be a net addition to the resident rural population'.<ref>Acland Report 1918: 28</ref>

This remained the philosophy of the commission for nearly fifty years. In 1946 the incoming Director General wrote of the employment created and the help of the commission towards a solution of 'one of the baffling social problems of our time... to draw men and their families "back to the land" and to make the attraction permanent', especially through the [[smallholding]]s policy.<ref>Taylor, W. L., Forests and Forestry in Great Britain, 1946, pp. 102–3</ref>

[[Simon Fraser, 14th Lord Lovat|Lord Lovat]], the 'Father' of the Forestry Commission, had extensive land holdings in Scotland, and it was in the Highlands that he and other Scottish landowners such as [[Sir John Maxwell Stirling-Maxwell, 10th Baronet|Sir John Stirling-Maxwell]] conceived of the scheme of land-settlement allied to forestry. As first chairman of the commission he was able to put into practice all over Britain this 'long cherished dream' of repopulating hill country, thanks to his good contacts in government. Money for the scheme was provided first by [[Philip Snowden]], Chancellor in the first Labour government, and then by his successor in Baldwin's Conservative administration, [[Winston Churchill]].

The scheme accordingly went ahead and created smallholdings in the new forests, of approximately ten acres, let for £15 a year. Originally 150 days' work was provided in the forests, but "in practice, of course, these smallholdings attracted the cream of our men whom we were glad to employ on full time..."<ref>Ryle, George, Forest Service, 1969, p. 188</ref> Existing and often derelict agricultural dwellings were adapted and new ones built to a small number of basic designs. The scheme "was never a directly economic proposition, but in the pre-war days when motor traffic was lacking and it was much more important than today to have a solid caucus of skilled woodmen {{sic}} living in the forests, the indirect benefits were inestimable. The holdings were a great success, and filled a genuine need in the countryside..."<ref>Ryle, op. cit.</ref>

The number of smallholdings built slowed down after the [[Great Depression]], was revived by the [[Special Areas Act 1934|Special Areas]] programme of 1934 onwards, but then was virtually ended by the [[Second World War]]. The total number of smallholdings was 1,511. After 1945 policy shifted to the building of houses without holdings. This was more economic for the Commission, and numbers of these peaked in 1955, with 2,688 cottages built by then. The smallholdings policy had been 'adequate during the early years of State forest development, when only a small nucleus of men was needed to plant and tend each forest. But expanding programmes of afforestation, new methods of fire protection, and above all the greatly increased volume of utilisation work that results as soon as the young woods reach the thinning stage, have made it essential, in most of the larger forests, to concentrate the building of new houses in villages or small community groups.'<ref>Edlin, H.L., Britain's New Forest Villages, article in Unasylva, 1952-3, p. 151; cf Annual Reports, e.g. 1951, 1952.</ref> With houses designed for head foresters, the peak year for all forest tenancies was 1958, with the Commission  owning a total of 4,627 properties.<ref>Annual Reports of the Forestry Commission, HMSO, 1920 onwards, for all figures of tenancies</ref>

Many of the more ambitious forest villages were never completed, partly because of their isolation, partly through financial restrictions, and partly because mechanisation, transport improvements, and more use of contract labour, all meant there was less need for staff houses. The social desirability of "company villages" in remote locations was questioned.<ref>Smith, F. V., Sociological Survey of Border Forest Villages, Forestry Commission Research and Development Paper 112, 1976; Irving, B. L., and E. L. Hilgendorf, Tied Houses in British Forestry, Forestry Commission Research and Development Paper 117, nd, ?1977-8</ref>

Some houses had been sold on the open market by 1972, when government policy encouraged the disposal of 'surplus' land and buildings.<ref>Forestry Policy, HMSO, 1972</ref> The gradual sale of housing to incomers became a flood in 1978-9 (under Labour), and the Thatcher administration then encouraged surviving tenants to buy with generous discounts.<ref>Annual Reports 1981, 1982</ref>

Although the social policy of the Forestry Commission is a thing of the past, its social impact on upland areas remains large, with many hamlets and small villages in what would otherwise be deserted or near-deserted valleys.<ref>Charles [[Alfred Gordon Clark|Gordon Clark]], Forestry Commission Social Policy as illustrated by Brecon (later Brycheiniog) Forest, in Brycheiniog, The Journal of the Brecknock Society, Volume XLV, 2014, pp. 101-114</ref>