Protection of Ancient Woodland and Trees

Marcus Fysh Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Pow]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will address in a moment. She is right; if we cannot stand by the designations, we might ask what the point of having them is. I put that to the Minister.

I thought that the Minister responsible for forestry would reply to the debate, but I am pleased to see the Minister of State with responsibility for farming in his place. The whole of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is especially committed to trees and woodland, but the Forestry Minister admitted in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—I was at the inquiry meeting at which he said this—that

“ancient woodland, as a category, is not a protected category”.

I am now coming on to what many of my hon. Friends are referring to—everything is about paragraph 118 of the national planning policy framework, which allows for the destruction or loss of

“ancient woodland and…aged or veteran trees”

if

“the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”.

As a result of that loophole, as I would describe it, hundreds of ancient woodlands and trees are being lost or threatened in the planning system every single year. Since the national planning policy framework was introduced in March 2012, more than 40 ancient woods have suffered from loss or damage.

[Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in planning assessments is that much reliance is placed on professional reports and assessments of one kind or another that are challengeable, although they seem to persist from development to development with a life of their own? We need decision makers who will actually challenge such things and not allow them to take on a life of their own.

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I will come on to later with reference to the idea of natural capital and how much value we put on the natural world versus development. The Woodland Trust is dealing with an incredible 560 threats to ancient woods; November saw the biggest escalation ever of the number of threats being registered—14 in one month, which is shocking. Threats can come from mineral extraction, installation of electricity or gas pipelines, housing, leisure proposals, roads, golf courses or even sites for war-gaming and paintballing.

Other ancient woodland areas are under threat from local area plans, which are falling through the net and we hardly know anything about. I have one such near me at Ash Priors, where houses were built on ancient woodland because the local plan could not really stand up for it. We do not know exactly how many ancient woods there are, let alone how many are threatened, because we rely on the dear old Woodland Trust to gather such data. I ask the Minister for a proper database to collate all such information, because then we would be on stronger ground.

Interestingly, the motion we are debating has not been far from the thoughts and considerations of others in this place. Only one year ago, in December 2014, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government called for ancient woodland to be awarded the same level of protection as designated heritage assets in the built environment, which include scheduled monuments, wreck sites, battlefields, and grade I and II listed buildings—my own house is grade II and, small and humble as it is, I cannot knock it down to build a road. Do my hon. Friends agree that the CLG Committee proposal seems eminently sensible?