Ancient woodland under threat

Sun 7 Nov 2021, 19:07 (last edited on Sun 7 Nov 2021, 19:53)

Liz, thank you for passing on the Cornbury view which I have also been sent.

You have said it is not the ancient woodland being felled.  Are you sure?  I understand there are felling markings on trees all over the woodland, in both the ancient woodland and non-designated sections.  If you meant that it is not ancient trees being felled, I pointed out in my initial post the difference between the two.  Just because the ancient woodland is currently planted with poplar does not mean it is any less protected.

It was never suggested that the trees were being felled by the developer.  The developer does not own the woodland and probably not even yet the development site, which is subject to an option agreement.  I am quite sure though that felling the poplar has been part of Cornbury's agreement with the developer.

So for Cornbury to suggest that the felling is not connected to the development is in my opinion disingenuous.  The timing is no coincidence. It has always been obvious to anyone who has looked at the site with the planned positioning of the housing that the trees are more than problematic and the tree plan submitted with the latest application showing the conflicts between the tree root areas and the housing footprints makes this even clearer.  That does not mean of course that the planning officer thought to mention it in any of his reports to the committee on the impacts of this development.

As I was clear to say in my original post, the poplars would not live forever but the type of management which the woodland is now being subject to is driven by development not woodland management.  No doubt the replanting around the fringe will also be heavily influenced by the proximity of the housing.

This woodland should be managed over many years, steadily underplanting and thinning the poplar.  Instead this drastic development driven felling will cause significant habitat loss as well as a dramatic impact on the setting of the west of the town.  Indeed the presence of the poplar belt was one of the reasons the developers' consultants argued the landscape and visual impact of the development would be mitigated.  These are reasons to justify a Tree Preservation Order which is an entirely separate process from a Forestry Commission felling licence, overrides it and considers different impacts. WODC's failure to impose its own 15m buffer policy for ancient woodland is indisputable as well as its failure to give a "wholly exceptional" justification for harm to an ancient woodland. WODC should be doing everything it can to recover those positions to justify its environmental claims.