Forestry Commission Consultation Hub

For feedback on our South Downs Forest Plan which lies in the area between the Arun Valley and A3M road, within the county of West Sussex. Consultation was opened 22 Dec 2025 and Closed 23 Jan 2026. In addition, emails were sent directly to known stakeholder organisations and individuals who we felt have an interest in how the forest is managed.

The consultation received six responses overall, providing useful insight into stakeholder priorities and expectations for the South Downs Forest Plan. Biodiversity and woodland ecology emerged as the strongest priority, with 83% rating it Very Important and no respondents marking it as unimportant. Similarly, Climate Change and Forest Protection were highly valued, each receiving 67% Very Important responses. Communities & People, along with Forest Products & Services and Recreation & Access, were generally viewed as Important. When asked how well the Plan meets stakeholder needs, 67% felt it addressed them Well, although one respondent felt it did so Poorly. Feedback was balanced, with three comments expressing concerns or unmet needs and four providing positive remarks. Stakeholder representation included NGOs (50%), government agencies (17%), and members of the public (17%), offering a mix of organisational and individual perspectives.

Across the feedback received, stakeholders highlighted a desire for greater ecological detail, clearer commitments, and stronger evidence to support future habitat improvements. A recurring concern was that the Forest Plan operates at a broad strategic level, leaving uncertainty around the specific ecological interventions, such as which rides will be enhanced, how open space will be created, and the level of commitment to biodiversity outcomes. Stakeholders also sought assurance that detailed surveys—particularly for archaeology, ancient woodland features, priority species, and other environmental sensitivities—would be undertaken before operations. Additionally, several respondents emphasised the importance of diversifying woodland structure beyond the existing beech monoculture, coordinating deer management with neighbouring landowners, and considering specific species such as yew and Hawfinch within future planting and monitoring programmes.

In response, we can confirm that detailed proposals will be developed through Operational Site Assessments (OSAs), which will set out the specific ecological management practices, ride enhancements, planting densities, and species choices. We confirm that pre‑operation surveys are already a routine requirement to ensure all activities comply with UK Forest Standard, and liaison with organisations such as Butterfly Conservation will be pursued where appropriate, as operational details are developed.

The plan’s commitment to managing the area under Low Impact Silvicultural Systems (LISS) will help break up the beech monoculture and create a more diverse age and species structure, providing natural variations in open space and habitat conditions. This approach will also support the natural regeneration of yew, as evidenced in recent local clearfells, and the more open structural conditions created under LISS will further encourage its establishment where appropriate.

We are also clarifying that deer will be managed in accordance with the South England Forest District Deer Management Strategy and, at a wider landscape scale, through partnership work with local Deer Management Groups to help safeguard regeneration and habitat improvements. Suggestions such as undertaking baseline and follow‑up surveys for species such as Hawfinch will be passed on to our ecology and wildlife teams, and we will seek funding to support this work as opportunities arise.

For feedback on our proposed management plan for Giggle Alley Woodland, and the associated aspirations of management for the Japanese Garden. 

Appreciated the chance to engage, and raised issues regarding the Japanese Garden level of investment required, and appropriate utilisation of the volunteering potential in the wider community

We will be attending the Parish Council meeting on the 11th March, and will be looking to fund the Japanese Garden restoration as a standalone project if appropriate.

Through external consultation for Speech House Walk and Ruardean Walk Forest Plan, we invited external stakeholders and the General public to give feedback on the plan, to ensure consideration given to objectives and proposals within the Forest Plan achieve an appropriate balance.

With posters displayed in the woods, in local libraries and displayed on social media, the consultation ran between 1^st November 2024 and closed on 12^th December 2024.  In addition, emails were sent directly to known stakeholder organisations and individuals who we felt have an interest in how the forest is managed.

In total this mix of approaches achieved 18 responses.

Responses

Out of 18 responses 72% were from private individuals, 15 of which were resident and 3 were visiting: with 39% of you saying that you had previous experience with our consultation process.  It was great to see that 72% of you said that as a result of this consultation your understanding of Forest Plans had increased, and where this is not the case some people suggested holding some form of drop in session at Beechenhurst.

Balance

Out of the 18 responses, 50% agreed the Forest plan achieves an appropriate balance of environmental, social and economic objectives for the woodland, but 33% disagreed and 17% declined to say. In the analysis of balance for objectives you firmly agreed the Forest Plan placed Nature and Ecology first with Social and Economic objectives, being difficult to split, a close second.

Examples

• An excellent plan, incredibly well detailed and links those ideas to the goals very well, believe they are achievable.
• First to establish that my priority is to value what we already have and appreciate it for what it is. I do not presume upon myself the self confidence to tell anyone how it could all be made better. It seems that some part of plans seem to do exactly that. The other common theme no matter the question, the felling of trees always seems to be the answer. The idea that the view in a forest can be improved by cutting down trees is perverse.
• A brilliant plan and document and look forward to seeing how this is put into action over the coming years! I feel we live in a wildlife-rich forest compared to the surrounding countryside and this plan is going to further enhance and support nature by ensuring better connectivity and landscape-scale restoration and conservation.

Trees and nature

Two thirds felt it very important to ensure the right tree is planted in the right place for the right reason, with 66% of you saying the Forest Plan did this successfully, 27% adequately successfully and only 5% felt the plan unsuccessful.

94% felt that establishing a varied network of habitats for nature conservation was either very important or important, with 72% of you saying the Forest plan did this successfully, 22% adequately successfully and only 5% felt the plan unsuccessful.

But, 100% of you felt it very important or important to reduce the spread and impact of pests and diseases around and on the Forest.

Examples

• An excellent plan, incredibly well detailed and links those ideas to the goals very well, believe they are achievable.
• Fire, risk and prevention appears to feature at the end of the document, given the acceleration of climate change with extended heatwaves, this subject needs far greater attention.
• I think a variety of trees are needed for the forest. I understand that the forest is a working woodland but it would be much appreciated if the contractors didn’t leave such a mess.

Water

86% of you viewed slowing the flow of water out of the forest and improving water quality as very important or important, with 6% saying this objective was insignificant and a further 6% didn’t answer.

71% of you said the Forest Plan did this successfully, 16% adequately successfully and 11% said the plan was unsuccessful.

Examples

• The main issue with focusing on individual habitat types is it becomes too prescriptive and we lose sight that the forest is at its most effective for nature when it delivers 'mosaic' habitat.

Heritage

For Cultural Heritage, 94% felt it important that this should be respected, with 6% saying insignificant.  Built heritage and archaeology was pretty similar at 88% and 6% respectively with 6% not answering.

65% of you said the Forest Plan was Successful, 16% adequately so with 16% saying unsuccessful.

Access

In terms of identifying, maintaining and enhancing community access 83% of you felt this as being important or very important with 11% saying insignificant and 6% not answering. Enhancing the recreation offer fielded a much more varied response 33% saying this was important, 22% said very important. 33% said this was insignificant and 6% saying very insignificant.  No answer received from 6%.

Examples

• I believe there is enough recreational and access already, the whole reason visitors come is to see the natural environment, not a "visitor attraction".
• If the plan offers a solution to improve peoples experience of being in a forest by cutting large tracts of it down - its missing the point of what a forest is - Cutting trees along the cycle track to improve the view - people like being in a forest, can I strongly suggest they do not want you to cut it down.
• It should be possible for us to walk for our health. Tourists get catered for but not the residents!
• It is currently accessible for all so why change it?

Consultation awareness

Almost 40% of you said you found out about the survey through social media, 44% through an email from Forestry England, word of mouth was 11% with seeing and reading a poster in the woods at 5%

Where people expressed a concern over operational matters e.g. how work has been carried out, how sites have been left, access for recreational purposes compromised in some way, concerns raised over disabled and carer access or damage to the forest by boar, then these concerns and messages have been passed onto the Operational Beat Team, Recreation Team or Wildlife Team to be looked into.

The planting of minor species has been promoted and advocated for and this includes the adoption of Natural Regeneration where appropriate. Underplanting or Beating-up (replacing dead or missing trees on a restock area) with alternative species is being promoted as a means to diversify species composition, protect against the threat of pests and disease and ensure the Forest is resilient in face of a changing climate.

Programs of work within the plan have been discussed with appropriate staff to ensure that they are achievable and resources planned.

We know some areas are being significantly effected by statutory fellings, so prescriptions have been evaluated, reducing the amount of routine clear felling, either by increasing the amount of Continuous Cover or moving the felling dates into the future, allowing sites to develop further and be monitored.