A DEMAND has been made for a full review of the system for handing out government grants to companies to plant trees in Scotland for carbon offsetting.

The call has been made by a ­Lanarkshire community who claim they have not been properly ­consulted over the proposal for tree planting on prime farmland sold to a London property developer.

It follows outrage over ­extensive blanket spraying of herbicide on a vast expanse of land in the ­Borders after Guernsey-based ­investment company True North was awarded more than £2 million from the ­Government’s ­forestry grant scheme.

A legal challenge by Stobo ­Residents Action Group (SRAG) claiming that Scottish Forestry had allowed the ­Peeblesshire project to go ahead ­without a proper ­environmental ­assessment led to operations being halted.

READ MORE: Labour leadership ‘want to suppress meaningful discussion on Gaza’ at conference

A review is now being ­carried out by Scottish Forestry who said they had not been notified of the large-scale overall herbicide spraying prior to the application being ­submitted,

In South Lanarkshire, the ­community have been protesting for more than two years that due process has not been followed over the proposal for a piece of prime farmland which was sold to London-based property development company Argent LLP.

According to Auldhouse and Chapelton Community Council, the company plan to develop the land as a woodland using Tilhill Forestry as their agents and claiming all relevant grants available from the Scottish Government through the forestry grant scheme. They plan to use this to offset their carbon footprint and ­mitigate CO2 emissions from their operations south of the border.

However, the community council argues this is far from the principles and aims of the scheme and may open the floodgates for any business to buy up farms, smallholdings, plots and tracts of agricultural land and take it out of food production just when Scotland needs to improve its food security.

“This drives up the price of land, pricing existing farmers out of the land market, potentially leading them to sell up if they cannot afford to ­increase the land they own or rent, further impacting the fragility of the rural economy and food ­production and a spiral of decline,” said a ­community council spokesperson.

“We fully understand the desire and need to mitigate CO2 emissions and forestry is certainly one way to do it – we just don’t think that ­Scottish ­Government (or rather our) money from the various grant schemes should be ­supporting ­London ­property ­developers or anyone ­without a ­connection to the local area or the land to trumpet their own ‘green’ credentials at the expense of the local economy while simultaneously ­taking agricultural land out of production.”

The application for forestry has not yet been officially approved but it is claimed the land is already being ­prepared for tree planting.

Neighbours of the East Nethershields woodland proposal also claim their protests are being ­ignored and the requirement for proper ­engagement and consultation has been suppressed. They say their ­evidence of this has been dismissed and that there is a perception that Scottish Forestry is biased in favour of the land agent.

They believe there is an inherent conflict of interest within Scottish Forestry as it is both the regulator of the scheme and the awarder of the grants and as there is a push from the Government for more trees to be planted, it means that schemes are less likely to be rejected even if they are unsuitable. This, they say, flies in the face of the Government’s ­statement that only public grants will be given for the “right trees in the right location”.

“The grants for creating ­forestry are significant and while the ­Government originally said that ­really poor ­agricultural land should be used in the push to create more trees, the farmland that is now being bought is good productive land and because of the amount of money you get, farmland prices have rocketed out of reach of people farming here,” said campaigner Stewart MacPhail.

Alberto Gregori added: “It is ­absolutely perverse, especially while at the same time the Scottish ­Government is cutting back on fuel subsidies for the elderly but is still ­going ahead with this. The Welsh and English don’t allow it but property developers there can use the ­Scottish Government grant to offset their ­carbon.”

The community have protested to Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon who made inquiries but said in a ­letter that she had been assured by Scottish Forestry that due process was being followed.

READ MORE: Ian Murray accused of 'hypocrisy' as 'freezing' pensioners tweet unearthed

“We are not being listened to – it is scary,” said Gregori. “There is this arrogance with Scottish Forestry ­because they are self-regulating – it’s not right and this is taxpayers’ ­money.”

NFU Scotland vice-president ­Andrew Connon said: “This subject remains a huge bone of contention amongst NFU Scotland members. NFU Scotland’s long-running policy position is in favour of farm woodlands that integrate into ­existing farm and croft businesses but against whole farm afforestation on a ­commercial scale on productive land because of the impact on agricultural activity, food production and rural communities, as well as the potential for land abandonment. We cannot have trees replacing farms and people.

“While some purchasers act in the best interest of the local community, we have lobbied all political parties for several years on the growing ­number of financial institutions, speculators and business investors with little or no knowledge or interest in the local communities and landscapes buying land, ultimately creating chaos as commercial forestry competes with hardwood forests, rewilding interests and agriculture.

“Given some of this investment is driven by green-washing, we also need concrete, accurate information on how effective blanket tree ­planting in this manner is in sequestering ­carbon and measuring that against a mix of livestock grazing and farm woodlands.

“At a time of biodiversity targets and concerns on biodiversity loss, it is also clear that blanket planting of sterile commercial forests is not the answer to enhancing wildlife.”

A Scottish Forestry spokesperson said: “We are very aware of local ­concerns being expressed over the woodland creation scheme at ­Nethershields.

“As with all new woodland creation proposals, we thoroughly assess them against UK Forestry Standard guidelines, which includes public ­consultation.

“Work on Nethershields, which is entirely a native woodland project, has followed the application process carefully and has considered local concerns. It should be noted, however, that it is not always possible to accommodate every issue raised by those opposed to the scheme.

“We are satisfied that the woodland creation process has been handled properly and that extensive engagement has taken place. At this stage, no Forestry Grant Scheme ­money has been awarded.

“Scottish Forestry’s goal is to get the right trees in the right place and there are checks and balances in place which aim to avoid planting on prime agricultural land.”

Tilhill Forestry was approached for comment.