Agenda item

The Panel will consider the presentations, ‘White Rose Forest Delivery’ and ‘Kirklees Woodland Creation.’

Contacts:

Iwan Downey, Programme Director (White Rose Forest)

Joe Robertson, Woodland Development Manager

The Panel considered presentations in respect of Woodland Creation which were presented by Paul Thompson, Programme Manager (White Rose Forest) and Joe Robertson, Woodland Development Manager. The Panel were advised that:

White Rose Forest – Programme Delivery and Context

• Monitoring of delivery figures for the 2020–2028 programme had demonstrated consistent annual planting contributions.
• Benefits were reported across accessible woodland provision, carbon capture and flood mitigation.
• Financial valuations of these benefits had been provided both for the wider White Rose Forest area and specifically for Kirklees.
• Total programme investments and expenditure distributions across outturn grants, asset development, legacy team costs and revenue/capital allocations had been presented.
• The expected TfC allocations for 2026/27 to 2029/30 had been outlined, including reduced revenue availability.
• increased capital funding would require a capitalisation approach to sustain team costs.
• WRF were working with the Woodland Trust and National Trust and awaited a new grant funding agreement in March/April 2026.
• The 2025–2050 White Rose Forest Strategic Plan had been shared, outlining long?term woodland creation ambitions.
• The programme was currently mainly funded by DEFRA but work was being undertaken to diversify funding streams.
• A new programme, RESTORE, had been proposed to bring more woodlands into long?term management, although funding was not yet in place.
• It was noted that TfC funding would reduce team capacity for the next 15–20 years.
• Key outcomes included;
  • The success of the Trees for Climate programme and the establishment of a stronger national profile for WRF.
  • Benefits to communities across Kirklees and wider Yorkshire had been emphasised.
  • Work was underway to broaden funding sources and maintain a sustainable partnership model.

Kirklees Woodland Creation Programme 2021–2026

• A review of the 2021–2025 planting seasons including Volunteer engagement figures, including numbers of volunteers, schools (including Huddersfield University), scouts, community groups and public sessions, had been presented for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 seasons.
• 2025–2026 planting season (in progress)
  • Data up to January 2026 showed continued strong volunteer participation, particularly from schools, scout groups and community groups.
  • Public sessions and delivery partner engagement remained consistent with previous years.
• Aftercare approach
  • All woodland creation sites were funded for 15 years of aftercare.
  • This included alternating annual condition checks, restocking activities and planned thinning between years 10–15, subject to growth conditions.
  • Work was underway to expand volunteer involvement in aftercare activities.

The Panel noted the presentation and, during the subsequent discussion, raised the following questions and points.

·       In response to questions from the Panel in relation to failure rates, it was explained that different sites experienced varying levels of tree loss. They reported that the programme worked on the basis that 10–20% losses were considered acceptable and expected, but restocking continued up to year five when tree guards were removed. Officers confirmed that reasons for failure were assessed on a site?by?site basis.

·       In response to questions from the Panel in relation to the aftercare period, officers confirmed that a 15?year aftercare programme was in place and that the Council was working with the White Rose Forest to further develop a woodland maintenance programme thereafter.

·       In response to questions from the Panel in relation to the use of different types of tree guards, it was advised that sheep?sized guards were used rather than deer guards. They highlighted that the guards functioned not only as protection but also as shelters to support biodiversity. Deer guards were significantly more expensive and had a high failure rate due to blowing over, and so their use was balanced against deer?grazing risk and monitored regularly. The use of wool and wood?resin guards was also highlighted, which were more costly but avoided plastic waste.

·       In response to questions from the Panel in relation to asset protection and vandalism risks, officers acknowledged that vandalism was difficult to manage but confirmed their commitment to improving prevention measures. They emphasised that long?term community involvement could help address these challenges and that the team continued to learn and take a balanced approach.

·       In response to questions from the Panel in relation to the Local Plan and pressures on land, officers confirmed that they were working closely alongside colleagues developing the Local Plan and within the wider assets service. They added that work was also linked to ongoing conversations relating to ward reviews and asset ownership. Officers noted that there were limitations in determining priorities until the Local Plan process had concluded.

·       In response to questions from the Panel in relation to the use of Section 106 agreements to support small?scale woodland creation, it was advised that landscaping conditions, including requirements around canopy cover, were being incorporated where appropriate. It was further explained that landscape architects were aware of these priorities and that these considerations were being embedded in Local Plan policy development. Officers also referenced the White Rose Forest ‘Green Streets’ programme, which brought together Highways and Planning colleagues to align shared objectives, supported by strategic principles for decision?making.

·       In response to questions from the Panel in relation to the use of Council volunteer days for tree planting, officers confirmed that staff volunteer days could be used for this purpose. They reported that opportunities were regularly promoted through intranet bulletins and that some teams used planting days as team?building activities. However, they noted that participation had declined despite ongoing promotion

·       In response to questions from the Panel in relation to community views towards tree planting, officers stated that objections typically came from a small number of individuals, often one or two per scheme, whereas broader resistance tended to appear only around larger?scale proposals. Officers emphasised the importance of acknowledging both support and objections when engaging with communities.

The Panel noted the presentations, and it was recommended that;

1. Conversations continue around the use of wording in section 106 agreements to support small woodland creation where possible.