Planning (S)D-Day

After an eventful consultation period the consultation deadline for the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) arrived on Monday 17th October.

Over the 12 weeks the debate got heated on all sides, from the government, the business lobby and environmental groups as for the first time planning grabbed the headlines and got really rather exciting! There was mud slinging on either side – including when Greg Clark accused the National Trust of ‘nihilistic selfishness’, which rebutted that the Government had ‘put short term financial gain ahead of everything else’. Luckily a basket of scones helped them kiss and make up!

Thanks to everyone who took part in our campaign, as always we really appreciate your support! We campaigned on the issues that are most important to us and our members; the protection of ancient trees and woods and promoting tree planting and woodland creation. More than 6,000 of you responded to our poll alone, and it’s clear that the majority agree that irreplaceable habitats like our remaining ancient woodland should be afforded real protection through the planning system, minus the existing loophole. Although Bob Neill MP, expressed a mistaken concern that we were wrong to suggest the NPPF put ancient woodland and ancient trees at risk, we know they will remain under constant threat until that loophole is removed.  We also campaigned on the important issues of defining ‘sustainable development’ and the risk involved with the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.  

A special “thank you!” to everyone who wrote to or visited their MPs. We very much enjoyed reading their responses, these were very useful in gauging opinion and informing our submission which you can find here,  please do have a read. Our submission was written with help from experts from around the Woodland Trust and reflects the full depth of our concerns whilst giving positive recommendations for change.

So what next? The Government’s consultation period has closed but we shall not be resting on our laurels. We shall be watching the ongoing debates in parliament and monitoring any further developments. The Government is aiming to publish the NPPF ahead of the March 31st deadline, in the meantime we shall keep you updated on its progress.

Victoria Bankes Price – Planning Advisor


About Kaye Brennan

Trying vegan, staying warm. Occasional bursts of words.
This entry was posted in Agriculture, Campaigning, Climate Change, Conservation, England, Government Affairs, Health, Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS), Woodland creation, Woods Under Threat and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Planning (S)D-Day

  1. Mere says:

    thanks i needed this

  2. Lesley says:

    The PPS9 guidelines with regards ancient woodland was direct reference to legal framework provided by the habitats directive; my understanding was that this continued under the NPPF, indeed specific reference was made, unlike most other areas that may hold a relevance to planning decisions. Bizarrely it was the SSSI issue that was at risk of losing some of its status as a result of NPPF but that the ancient woods angle helped further protect SSSI which contained this unique habitat. I am struggling to understand and hope you can further clarify and pinpoint the loophole mentioned. If it was solely the over riding presumption in favour of; then this ties in with a campaign for all natural elements of a landscape and therefore identfying threat to ancient woodland alone which enjoys a legal status of envy to other habitats then we could see further fragmentation as a result of this stance, with overly protected ancient woodland but little else protected to allow integration of biodiversity between these monuments of extreme ecosystem services wealth. Plus can confirm you how many people directly campaigned using the platform you provided in this regard? 6000 or 19,000. Thank you in advance.

    • Richard Barnes says:

      Hello Lesley,
      I have replied to your point about our campaign and the habitats directive on our other post (
      Just to clarify the figures you asked about – 6,518 people gave us their views through our poll on what protection they felt AW should be given in the NPPF, and whether they feel trees and woodland have a part to play in planning. This data was included in our formal NPPF submission. In total, we received over 19,000 responses – by which we mean downloads and page views, emails with supporters which were aimed at galvanizing responses to the government’s survey as well as the poll – to our campaign.
      Best wishes,

Sorry, comments are closed as we have moved to a new site:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s