 Fiona Reynolds had not taken much notice of the government's plans to sell swathes of Britain's forests until Thursday. That day the director of the National Trust was sent an internet link to documents detailing what the coalition has in mind.  When she got round to reading the documents after a busy conference, she was shocked. The government, she discovered, wanted to sell, or hand over control of, Forestry Commission land covering not just commercial woodlands but also sites important to Britain's heritage.  Reynolds called an emergency meeting of her top team, who gathered on Friday at the trust's headquarters in Swindon, Wiltshire. They discussed what action their organisation, which has 3m members, could take.  She said yesterday: "We were very surprised the government is actually putting some of our most iconic woodland at the top of list to be handed over.  "These much-cherished places have been in public hands for centuries, enjoyed by everyone for generation after generation. We have a long history of stepping in when heritage has been placed at risk in this way."  Suggestions that the trust might try to buy the forests outright are wide of the mark. "We are certainly in no position to take it over completely at the moment," said Reynolds.  However, she is keen to do whatever is within the trust's power to prevent historic sites falling into the hands of private enterprises that might subsequently deny the public access to them.  Even if the trust can forge schemes with other charities and local bodies to acquire forests in some form, the effect might well be limited. Woodlands that are classed as "heritage" sites, which might be given to charities, make up only 50,000 hectares of land, less than 20% of the 258,000 hectares owned by the Forestry Commission.  an online petition opposing the sale has collected nearly 300,000 signatures. Prominent public figures, including the archbishop of Canterbury and Dame Judi Dench, have signed an open letter to the government in which they said the sale was "misjudged and shortsighted" and "the most destructive of all possible options". With a YouGov survey for The Sunday Times today showing that 71% of people are opposed to the government's plans, a battle looms.  THE Forestry Commission was set up in 1919 to ensure a healthy supply of timber for the nation. Forests had been dwindling since the middle ages, and the industrial revolution burnt so much wood that Britain had to rely on imports to meet its wartime needs for timber.  after decades of the commission cultivating woodland, proposals to sell its property were announced last year when the forestry minister Jim Paice told parliament of plans for a "very substantial disposal of public forest estate, which could go to the extent of all of it".  amid all the talk of public spending cuts, few took much notice. The government claims the sale is an economic necessity for the cash-strapped Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs (Defra), and will raise between ?150m and ?250m over 10 years.  Ministers also argue that the commission needs to be modernised, saying there is a conflict of interest in its role. Caroline Spelman, the department's secretary of state, said: "These proposals give us the opportunity to address the quirk of the Forestry Commission's position, whereby it is the regulator of the very market of which it is the largest player."  Such aims, and the sums involved, have appeared thin to many and concerns have grown as the nature of the sale has emerged. The majority of the Forestry Commission land has been classified by Defra as "commercial forest", which the government, after toying with outright sale, now proposes to put on the open market under 150-year leases.  The government says the leases, alongside amendments to planning regulations, will allow ministers to exert some control over the forests, ensuring that the land is accessible to walkers, cyclists and horse riders.  Critics have serious doubts about whether such a system would be effective. They cite the example of Rigg Wood in the Lake District, which was among 13,000 hectares of Forestry Commission land quietly sold by the previous government.  The wood had been widely used by local residents and tourists, partly because of its convenient car parking. Once it was bought by a timber company, though, locals found access to the parking area was blocked and signs were erected warning that the woods were "private property".  Timber companies say access routes for the public will have to be blocked if they are to "manage" woodland effectively.  Stuart Goodall, chief executive of the Confederation of Forest Industries (ConFor), said: "You can't have people walking past if you are cutting down trees."  Despite the commercial opportunities, ConFor has its own concerns. It believes that the big winners from any sale would not be timber companies but energy groups who could reap large subsidies, under the government's agenda to encourage renewable energy, for burning the wood as a biofuel.  Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE), already harvests wood from Scottish forests for its plants in Fiddler's Ferry, Cheshire, and Ferrybridge, West Yorkshire. It has expressed an interest in acquiring some of the Forestry Commission's holdings.  SSE said last week it was too early to discuss the specifics of any purchase, adding that there were many environmental benefits to using timber as biofuel. However, Goodall says companies buying forests for energy purposes could be damaging to other interests.  "Small and medium-sized timber companies are going to find themselves squeezed out by these energy giants who will benefit from having subsidies," he said. "It will completely change the way these forests are managed, as trees won't be grown for quality but just to be burned.  "We want to use these forests to build homes and create jobs, not stuff them up a chimney."  WRITING in The Sunday Times today, Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, says the government's safeguards will be insufficient to protect the forests once they fall into private hands. He also argues that the present system is inexpensive and the sale of the land would raise only modest sums.  according to Miliband, the Forestry Commission land costs each ta 