Agenda item

The Panel will consider a presentation on White Rose Forest - Summary review of 2022/23 and looking ahead to 2023/24.

Contact: Guy Thompson, White Rose Forest Programme Director

The Panel considered a presentation on White Rose Forest - Summary review of 2022/23 and looking ahead to 2023/24. Guy Thompson, White Rose Forest Programme Director gave the update which began with a short video summarising the achievements from the previous reporting year, followed by the presentation which highlighted that:

• The total number of hectares planted in the White Rose Forest (WRF) was 329; a significant amount when compared to the national figure of 1000.
• England’s Community Forest (ECF) network covered 20% of England’s land cover and delivered more woodland than any other single Woodland Creation Partnership including the Forestry Commission.
• The WRF was in its 3^rd year of a 5-year programme and during this time the WRF had gained a national profile with a growing reputation.
• After 3 seasons the WRF had:
  • Created 805 hectares of new woodland and supported the planting of 1600 trees.
  • Invested £6.7m with landowners across North and West Yorkshire.
  • Over 30,000 households would have more access to local woodlands as a result of the trees planted.
  • 235 hectares of new woodland had been planted next to the existing ancient woodland resource protecting its biodiversity value.
• The WRF Delivery pathway was working, and Kirklees and the Community Forest Trust had recruited a capable and ambitious WRF core team. 
• A Governance transition was underway to respond to changing region governance and a surge in both political interest and resources for Community Forests.
• A WRF 25-year plan from 2025-2050 (aimed to launch 1^st August 2025) was being developed which was to set out the Vision, targets and ambitions for woodland creation and woodland management for North and West Yorkshire.
• The Plan was to prioritise biodiversity, climate resilience, community mental health and job skills.

The Panel noted the presentation and, in the discussion to follow, asked several questions around value for money, measuring success, and the risks of failed trees, with reference to a particular project in Skelmanthorpe where only a few trees had survived due to lack of maintenance or protection.

In response to the questions, Guy Thompson advised that once the scheme had been designed (which was suitable for landowners needs within the context of the site) that the contract was put in place which outlined the amount of maintenance and funding required. Kirklees as the accountable body and on behalf of DEFRA bought in a 15-year woodland. Up until that point if the trees weren’t successful, legally the ownness was on the landowner to rectify this. It was also noted that where there were droughts or rain at the wrong time, there were sites where there was inevitably failure.

The Panel wanted to understand more about the Green Streets (the number of Green Streets in Kirklees and the ambition for this). In response, Guy Thompson advised that the ‘Green streets’ project was aimed at targeting priority communities, areas of job growth and the key routes that linked them. Kirklees were currently undertaking mapping work around its transport routes to identify opportunities for tree planting and woodland creation and further agreed to provide the Panel with Kirklees specific data.

The Panel asked further questions around landownership, and the use of tree guards noting concerns that the decision not to use guards increased the risk of failure.

In response Guy Thompson advised that use of tree guards was dependent on a number of factors arising from the landowner and the purpose of the site. Once the purpose of the woodland was determined, a forester would design the project to ensure that the trees became independent within the landscape and there were numerous ways of doing this, i.e.-  fencing, a weeding regime, species selection, or guards etc…Most sites did include the use of guards unless there was a risk of increased vandalism, in which case more trees would be planted with the expectation of some losses. There were also some sites that chose to be plastic free, and it was acknowledged that this was a risk, but those landowners choosing not to use tree guards were liable to make up for any losses.

In response to the question about landownership, it was advised that most schemes were Local Authority owned in recent years. The next major grouping of landowners were large estates, but it could take up to 3-4 years to get permissions for planting and as a result there were no expectations for ownership to change in the short-term. Other landowners included tenant farmers, whose landowners agreement was required for investment. 

The Panel noted the response and asked what support was available to landowners and if there was any best practice guidance provided to them in relation to the long-term maintenance of trees, and if so if an example could be provided. The Panel also wanted to know how likely it was that the projects would achieve the desired outcomes.

In response, Guy Thompson referred to the WRF delivery pathway which was a bespoke process and involved working with landowners and accessing their needs. The level of support and training was then shaped around this, and Landowners were revisited on a 5 yearly basis to reassess any changing needs. In response to the question about the success of the projects, Guy Thompson expressed confidence that in the current climate the projects would produce woodland in 10-15 years.

The Panel noted the response and asked further questions in respect of checking in with the landowner throughout the contract and about the relationship with parks and green spaces. Guy Thompson responded to advised that the Major Project Service and the core team function covered North and West Yorkshire. The team was separate from the parks and green space function, and it was suggested that it would be best to obtain further details from Kirklees as the landowner. In response to the question about checking in with and visiting landowners Guy Thompson confirmed this was usually after 5 years unless contact was made prior by the landowners due to a particular challenge or unexpected losses. 

The Panel further highlighted the importance of biodiversity and the targets in relation to increasing biodiversity. The Panel also wanted to know if there was scope to work with community groups around tree planting and site assessment.

In response, Guy Thompson advised that native species were the default chosen for planting. In the case of Ancient Woodland, it was acknowledged that this was a finite resource which could not be replaced or expanded but action could be taken to plant around it to increase biodiversity. Work was being undertaken with Forest Research to link into key biodiversity corridors in North and West Yorkshire. The targets were long term and were dependent on the individual driver and design working with the landowner. 

In response to the question relating to support for Community Groups, Guy Thompson advised that the main challenges to smaller groups arose from the complex regulatory processes. Plans to help support Community Groups included the offer of bespoke training in relation to increasing understanding of the delivery pathway, 1:1 meetings to identify training/resource needs, and a planning grant.

RESOLVED: The Panel noted the report, White Rose Forest – Summary review 2022/23 and looking ahead to 2023/24 and recommended that Kirklees specific data be provided in relation to the Green Streets be provided to the Panel.