Could some STW arboreal/planning types explain what is going on here? Is this because “ancient woodland” is often a sticking point in the planning process – and somebody has proposed a wizard wheeze to get around it?

What would stop developers digging up ancient/mature/established woodland – and replacing it with a (no doubt cheap) stand of monoculture on some waste ground, somewhere else? 😕

Ancient woodland could be destroyed to make way for building in ‘offsetting’ push

I heard about this and thought it was something the Daily Mash had dreamt up.

OP – you have it in one.

I agree you have pretty much nailed it. Its a way to allow more development of sensitive sites and try to convince idiots its fine. You cannot recreate ancient habitats.

The same reason we build new houses instead of renovating old ones:

It’s horrible, destructive, unsympathic, short termism.
But someone, somewhere is getting a bung.

Yep a con.

Owen Paterson displaying his true colours.

Biodiversity offsetting can work – for habitats that can be recreated – but it is at the bottom of the list of impact mitigation. Natural England is actively looking at it and there are various projects going on where it is being pursued.

However, the clue is in the name with Ancient Woodland – it cannot be recreated and Paterson is either an idiot or is starting to prepare the ground for a further weakening of measures to protect the natural environment from development.

Current situation: build on (say) woodland you’ve lost it. Hard luck.

Biodiversity offsetting: build on woodland, get a new or improved habitat of sorts elsewhere to replace it.

Is it perfect? No. Is it better than we have at the minute? Yes

Is it perfect? No. Is it better than we have at the minute? Yes

How about we exhaust the brownfield sites and old RAF airfield stuff first then look at ancient woodlands?

Probably because the developers know that land that’s already near an ancient woodland will be worth more than some old brownfield site.

Hey here’s a good idea. Since all the remaining ancient woodland is fragmented, why not dig it all up and replant it in one big desolate area – that’s probably somewhere up North, then concrete over what’s left.

I kid you not here, one of the ideas is to transplant the mud from ancient woodlands that are grubbed up to somewhere else where the woodland will be regrown. This is supposed to fast-track the woodland to become ancient. Bonkers.

get a new or improved habitat

how do you create an improved habitat

kid you not here, one of the ideas is to transplant the mud from ancient woodlands that are grubbed up to somewhere else where the woodland will be regrown. This is supposed to fast-track the woodland to become ancient. Bonkers.

its not as daft as it sounds, the soil mycorrhizal fungi play an important role in maintaining the biodiversity of ground flora, it is however largely pissing in the wind. Its good to do if you are trying to create a new diverse habitat but its not going to mitigate the losses when trying to replace something

99% of this country is managed by man. Only tiny parts if Scotland is true wilderness. Habitats can be improved by paying for better management that helps wildlife e.g. Blocking up moorland ditches so the peat bogs come back. A hypothecated tax on a developer could pay for that.

I don’t always agree with Moonbat, but he’s bang-on here:

The company that wants to build the service station wasn’t slow to see the possibilities. It is offering to replace Smithy Wood with “60,000 trees … planted on 16 hectares of local land close to the site”. Who cares whether a tree is a hunched and fissured coppiced oak, worked by people for centuries, or a sapling planted beside a slip-road with a rabbit guard around it?

You can see how it could be acceptable for exceptional cases- serious infrastructure frinstance, where there’s constraints on where it can physically go. But for other building, nope. Just build somewhere else. What’s easier to relocate, ancient woodland, or a building that doesn’t yet exist?

Am I changing, or is George? Or is it just that I didn’t used to realise I actually agreed with a lot of what he wrote? (to be fair he does still write some complete tosh).

Can we offset Moonbat?

Paterson is also a climate change denier and appears to have no understanding of science. Perfect environment secretary for this government.