Futures Forum: Ancient woodland: under threat?

Here is a posting from today which highlights a possible danger posed to ancient woodland from the agenda for the special Development Management Committee which debates “minor amendments” to the Local Plan on Thursday 18th July:

How much more can our trees take?

Local Plan final version

Claire | Friday, 05 July 2013

The changes to the tree policy on page 206 caught my eye. I was alarmed to see it had acquired a large hole since the last draft, with regard to the protection of ancient trees and woodland.

See [new] policy here:

D3 - Trees and Development Sites: ® 6.231
Permission will only be granted for development, where appropriate tree retention and/or planting is proposed in conjunction with the proposed nearby construction. The council will seek to ensure that there is no net loss of trees or hedgerows resulting from an approved development.

The development should deliver a harmonious and sustainable relationship between structures and trees. The recommendations of British Standard 5837:2012 (or the current revision) will be taken fully into account in addressing development proposals.

No building, hard surfacing drainage or underground works will be permitted that does not accord with the principles of BS 5837 or Volume 4 National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus in Proximity to Trees – Issue 2 (or the current revision) unless, exceptionally, the Council is satisfied that such works can be accommodated without harm to the trees concerned or there are overriding reasons for development to proceed.

The Council will as a condition of any planning permission granted, require details as to how trees, hedges and hedge banks will be protected prior to and during and after construction. The Council will protect existing trees and trees planted in accordance with approved landscaping schemes through the making of Tree Preservation Orders.

Planning permission will be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.

Compare this to the [original] adopted local plan policy on trees - below:

Permission will not be granted for developments that would result in the net loss of trees or significant lengths of hedges/hedgebanks of amenity,historic or conservation value. British Standard 5837 will be taken fully into account in addressing development proposals.

The District Council will require details as to how trees and hedges/hedgebanks will be protected both during and after construction, as a condition of any planning permission granted. No building or works will be permitted within five metres of the edge of the mature crown spread of essential trees that have been identified for retention.

Only in exceptional circumstances where there is no other alternative and the appropriate information and methodology has been provided, in accordance with BS5837 and approved
methods of construction, will no hard surfacing or drainage, underground of services or sub-soil works be permitted within this five metre exclusion zone .

Where did this dangerous hole come from, I wondered. And then I checked the national planning policy framework - yes, of course, the hole comes from the NPPF.

How at risk our woodlands are, not just from unprecedented diseases but from the particularly stupid decisions of ministers, only time will tell…...

Here’s the full agenda for the meeting on Thursday 18 July, starting at 10am - see rules for public speaking on agenda papers - http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/combined_special_dmc_agenda_180713.pdf

Claire Wright - Your Independent East Devon District Councillor for Ottery Rural

These concerns had already been highlighted by the Woodland Trust's input on the draft NPPF:

Woodland Trust's consultation response

It's great to see a level of ancient woodland protection included in the draft NPPF - but we need real protection for woods and trees.

The draft NPPF states:

'planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.'

We believe that retaining the damaging loophole ('unless the need for, and benefits of, the development...') in this guidance retains the 'get-out clause' for developers that has for years undermined what protection is offered to ancient trees and ancient woodland, and other precious habitats in the wider landscape, through the planning system.

We also believe:

Green spaces and trees and woodland outside of designated areas are not offered protection through the NPPF;
The draft actually dilutes previous protection for the countryside by giving it no protection for its own intrinsic value;
The text is contradictory and terms are confusing. Decision-makers on the ground will find the ambiguous guidance and uncertain definitions it currently contains very difficult to use in practice;
Planning policy must reflect the fact that woods and trees have huge benefits for us and wildlife; they should be fully integrated with development in towns and cities.