Forum menu
Question for any Fo...
 

[Closed] Question for any Forestry types on here

Posts: 5655
Full Member
Topic starter
 
[#1004732]

What are the legal steps that need to be taken before a piece of wood can be used for commercial forestry? I'm asking because there is a local trail which has just been shut down by the landowners (the University) with the intention of converting it into a working wood. No consultation has taken place, notices have only appeared last week which say that work will start immediately, and although it won't be my first line of enquiry once I get in touch with the relevant people, I can't help but wonder whether things have been done by the book.


 
Posted : 02/11/2009 10:33 am
Posts: 36
Free Member
 

I didnt think there was a distinction between standing wood and wood that's being harvested.


 
Posted : 02/11/2009 10:41 am
 huw
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Anyone landowner/tenant, or agent acting on behalf of either, who wants to cut down trees, whether commercial or not, will need a Felling Licence from the Forestry Commission, unless they fall into the "exempt" category (volume of timber felled is less than 5 cubic metres and things like tree size under 1.3m, "lopping & topping", fruit trees, clearing for utilities works, gas, water etc. dangerous/nuisance trees etc). The licence will carry a load of conditions, depending on the application. There is nothing stating that the landowner has to automatically provide prior notice/consultation before felling, after all, it's their land, unless stipulated in the conditions of the licence of course.

For those who are really interested or have a lot of time on their hands, here's most, if not all the laws governing the FC's control on tree felling:

Forestry Act 1967 (Part II) as amended by the Trees Act 1970 and the Forestry
Acts 1979 and 1986.
• The Forestry (Felling of Trees) Regulations 1979 (SI 1979 No 791) as amended by
the Forestry (Felling of Trees) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No 632).
• The Forestry (Exceptions from Restriction of Felling) Regulations 1979 (SI 1979 No
792) as amended by the Forestry (Exceptions from Restriction of Felling)
(Amendments) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No 1572) and by the Forestry
(Exceptions from Restriction of Felling) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988
No 970).
• The Forestry (Modifications of Felling Restriction) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No
1958).
• The Plant Health (Forestry) (Great Britain) Order 1993 (SI 1993 No 1283, as
amended by SI 1994 No 3094, SI 1995 No 1989, SI 1996 No 751, SI 1998 No 2206,
SI 1998 No 3109, SI 2001 No 299, SI 2002 No 295).
• The Watermark Disease Local Authorities Order 1974 (SI 1974 No 768, as
amended by SI 1984 No 688, SI 1986 No 1342 and SI 1992 No 44).
• The Dutch Elm Disease (Local Authorities) Order 1984 (SI 1984 No 687, as
amended by SI 1988 No 604).
• Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.
• Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) Regulations 1999.

😉


 
Posted : 02/11/2009 10:44 am
Posts: 5655
Full Member
Topic starter
 

Thanks Huw, that's fantastic. Does anyone know if there any planning applications needed?


 
Posted : 02/11/2009 11:02 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Are you refering to Still woods?


 
Posted : 02/11/2009 11:05 am
Posts: 36
Free Member
 

http://www.woodlands.co.uk/buying-a-wood/planning-and-woodlands.php

Planning controls over forestry are fairly simple on the face of it. Planning permission is not required for forestry work (except where there is a Tree Preservation Order) and may not be needed for buildings or uses of land necessary for forestry. However, planning permission is always required for non-forestry uses of land, buildings or any other form of development.

MrA - as I said, I didnt think there was a use class distinction between land with standing trees and land that's being harvested.


 
Posted : 02/11/2009 11:09 am
Posts: 5655
Full Member
Topic starter
 

Cheers Stoner. That link's incredibly informative, but not very helpful, if you know what I mean. 😉

Nickegg, yes, Still woods. Apparently they are already bringing diggers in. 🙁


 
Posted : 02/11/2009 11:15 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

That sucks...only ridden there a couple of times in the past but seeing as it's essentially private land i would have thought it's a lost cause.

I can see how alot of people will be gutted about it though. Surely the Uni have the right to do what they please?


 
Posted : 02/11/2009 11:46 am