Page 30 - MJC submissions

STEPS TOWARDS AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
And stipulations

7.2 Comments on Key Elements; Ancient Woodland (Continued)
The WH:LIC site also has large area of ancient woodland but WH:NCP has none.

A government paper “Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees; Protecting them from
28
development” emphasises the importance of protection but permits development and even
destruction after the impacts have been assessed and when “the need for, and benefits of, the Page | 20
development in that location clearly outweigh the [loss]”.

The Ancient Tree Inventory has no entries for the RH19 postal codes because it only
29
catalogues individual trees and areas of ancient woodland greater than 2ha. This does not
mean that the ancient woodland affected by the applications can be violated. AHL appears to
agree, although may challenge its boundaries.

The fact that no ancient woodland is inventoried between Forest Row and East
Grinstead arguably makes the WH site even more important.

The paper describes various mitigation measures including the option chosen by AHL of a
buffer zone. It states: “leaving an appropriate buffer zone of semi-natural habitat between the
development and the ancient woodland or tree (depending on the size of the development,
30
a minimum buffer should be at least 15 metres)” or “leaving a buffer zone a least 15 times
larger than the diameter of a veteran tree or 5m from the edge of its canopy, if that’s
greater”. There is nothing in the paper to suggest how these ambiguities should be resolved.

The buffer area proposed is not a “semi-natural habitat” as required, but a road and
car park.

An ecology report produced by Ralph Hobbs on behalf of AHL states:

“The new buffer zone will be much more ecologically valuable compared with the current
uses as a car park, with short lawn right up to the base of the woodland trees. In summary
the buffer zone will provide the following new benefits

 improved protection for ancient woodland and tree root zone;

 enhanced woodland edge habitat for insects, bats, birds et cetera;

 an increase in area of wildlife habitat;

 ensure that any new lighting is not placed too close to the woodland edge (together
with using designs that reduce sideways and upward light pollution)
 a significant ecological improvement over the current situation”

With due respect to Mr Hobbs, this is misleading for reasons explained below.

28 Not included in the application
29 By the Woodland Trust
30 This is not clarified, but given the size of the ancient woodland and its rarity in the area a larger buffer may be
justified