news page

A WOODLAND TRUST / ANCIENT TREE FORUM RESPONSE
ENGLISH HERITAGE - FIVE YEAR REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

This contribution to the English Heritage (EH) Five Year Review is provided by the Woodland Trust, the United Kingdom’s leading charity solely dedicated to the conservation of native and broadleaved woodland. We achieve our purposes through a combination of acquiring woodland and sites for planting and through wider advocacy of the importance of protecting ancient woodland, enhancing its biodiversity, expanding woodland cover and increasing public enjoyment. We own over 1100 sites across the country, covering around 18,000 hectares and we have 250,000 members and supporters.

The Woodland Trust and the Ancient Tree Forum are working together in promoting the conservation of ancient trees. The Ancient Tree Forum advocate no further avoidable loss of ancient trees, good management of ancient trees, the development of a succession of future ancient trees, and seek to raise awareness and understanding of their value and importance.

This response to the EH Quinquennial Performance Review is a joint response from the two organisations. We have answered a selection of questions most relevant to our particular interests in ancient landscapes and ancient trees rather than respond to all questions.

CONTEXT

Our response focuses on the importance of English Heritage’s role in safeguarding ancient woodland and ancient trees, especially in parkland and woodland. The following short paragraphs put this concern in context.

Research undertaken for the Woodland Trust revealed that 90% of the general public believe ancient woodland (land continuously wooded since AD1600) to be as much part of our heritage as castles and cathedrals and should receive special protection. As well as being diverse, complex ecosystems which support a huge wealth of plants and animals, ancient woods are places of inordinate beauty, reservoirs of evidence for environmental change, archaeology and economic history and a source of inspiration for local culture and folklore. In some cases ancient woods form a direct link back to the original wildwood which became established after the last Ice Age whilst Bronze and Iron Age earthworks, ancient park boundaries, woodbanks, coppice stools and pollards all help to give us a picture of land use by our ancestors.

Ancient trees are of inordinate value for their fundamental contribution to biodiversity, their links with past landscapes and their cultural significance. The great age and physical presence of ancient trees captivates peoples’ imaginations and makes them symbolically significant e.g. the ‘Major Oak’ in Sherwood Forest.Yet threats to our ancient trees are very real, from intensive agriculture and unsympathetic forestry to inappropriate development and anxieties relating to safety. Many of these threats arise out of ignorance of the value of ancient trees and their conservation requirements.

Ancient trees present in the wider countryside are often a surviving component of a previous land use, as boundary markers on ancient wood banks, marking parish boundaries or in open fields. The isolation of these trees makes them, and the species they support, especially vulnerable both to effects such as inputs of agricultural chemicals and over-grazing.

Ancient woods and trees are therefore not only a vital part of our historic environment but also contribute to outstanding historic landscapes. Yet despite this they are alarmingly lacking in protection. The representative rather than inclusive nature of the SSSI system means that at present, only 15% of ancient woods are protected for their nature conservation interest whilst none are protected solely on account of their historic interest. The Government should recognise that whilst lacking any formal protection, ancient woods and trees are in fact extremely important from an historic point of view and their best interests are met through management which is focused upon preserving historic continuity (England for example may be home to most of Europe’s ancient trees). We believe this necessitates that their protection is a matter which should not only concern those engaged in framing agricultural, forestry and conservation policy but those engaged in wider heritage policy also and we believe that the shift to a broader idea of what constitutes the historic environment should lead to action in this sphere.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

We would like to see EH place greater emphasis on the role of historic landscapes in our historic environment. In particular we believe that important cultural landscapes that predate designed landscapes should be properly recognised and given greater priority.
We would like to see important ancient landscapes designated and placed on a revised Historic Register which can take into account of cultural features at a landscape scale and not just on a site by site basis. Appropriate policies and practices should be developed for such designated landscapes.
Important ancient countryside features such as ancient trees should be protected by an appropriate designation as a priority.
We would like to see EH allocate more resources to reconnecting people with their historic landscapes similar to their existing high quality of interpretation in relation to historic buildings.
Given the emphasis of the current government on building partnerships to achieve its policy objectives, we would like to see more joined up working between EH and Government Departments and Agencies over the responsibilities for historic landscapes. EH and DEFRA, The Countryside Agency, the Forestry Commission and English Nature all have a role to play in protecting and championing our historic landscapes for their social, economic and ecological values, however the way in which government bodies either work together or independently is not transparent or clear cut and there is a danger that historic landscapes fall in between them.
EH is in a unique position as the owner/manager of historic landscapes to act as an exemplar of the Government’s stated commitment to sustainable development, reflecting economic social and environmental best practice in its own estate. In particular we believe EH should take a lead in the management of the ancient woodlands and ancient trees in their care to raise the profile of the part they have played down the centuries in creating our historic environment. We also believe EH has an important role to play in setting new standards in the management of woodlands and ancient trees to maintain their heritage value into the future.

ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
What is your relationship to EH?

The Ancient Tree Forum had contact with EH through the Veteran Tree Initiative which ended in March 2000. Since then the ATF and the Woodland Trust have continued contact with EH through the Lowland Wood Pasture and Parkland Habitat Action Plan forum. We believe that EH has a role to play in other HAPs and would welcome their involvement in HAPs relating to woodlands and those that contain ancient trees.

EH’s role as an owner/manager of historic sites, often of high biodiversity and conservation value and recreational benefit, is also a key one for us as this ownership in turn delivers our objectives. The ATF is actively involved in providing training workshops for staff responsible for managing ancient trees on EH sites.

We will seek to develop a stronger working relationship with EH to reflect the importance we place on the value of ancient woods and trees in the historic environment.

What does the EH Brand mean to you?

Our overall impression is of an organisation that has yet to clarify the boundaries of its role in relation to the wider countryside. We believe EH’s role in relation to the historic countryside and its relationship with other government departments and agencies also involved in the countryside has yet to be properly clarified.

There are a significant number of sites in EH’s care which retain ancient trees and ancient woodland. We would wish to see these recognised and managed for the part they have played down the centuries in creating our historic environment. We believe EH should be an exemplar of good management practice of ancient trees and woodlands on its sites.

Although EH has participated in the Habitat Action Plan - Lowland Wood Pasture and Parkland, we believe that EH should be playing a greater part in the implementation of this HAP as it provides many benefits for the Historic Environment. EH may be under-selling its potential contribution to the delivery of targets relating to this HAP in particular but also in other HAPs.

EH has played an important role in the designation and recording of significant historic buildings and landscapes. However we believe that the Register does not adequately reflect the importance of ancient landscapes, which predate designed landscapes.

Should EH continue to perform all these tasks?

In relation to the historic landscape we believe that EH should continue to undertake its three main functions: increasing understanding of the historic environment, conserving the historic environment and encouraging access to the historic environment.

While there is evidence that EH has some sympathy with WT/ATF aims judging by the content of its corporate publications and public statements, our main concern lies over the issue of the priority attached to the historic countryside over historic buildings and therefore we should like to see a more even handed approach to the work of EH between historic buildings and historic landscapes.

Should any be added?

The Trust’s developing thinking on conservation priorities has led us to view priorities at a landscape scale; we are not clear whether EH staff feel empowered to work with adjacent landowners on initiatives such as the creation of buffer zones around sensitive sites such as parkland and wood pastures and semi-natural ancient woods, or whether planning to deploy EHs resources across the country takes account of priorities at the kind of national landscape scale.

EH’s particular contribution may be in managing those sites where the private sector might not go that extra mile (particularly under current standards and arrangements) in terms of provision of high level of public access, sites where there is no direct net financial return, where management of ancient trees and restoration of wood pasture and parkland is a high priority, where Habitat Action Plan delivery is prioritised, or where there is a strong history or desire for public participation and involvement in delivery of landscape management.

EH in partnership with other government departments should identify ways in which the value of our historic landscapes for tourism could be more fully evaluated and quantified. We believe that both British and foreign tourists value our historic landscapes very highly and demonstrate this by their preference for visiting historic landscapes eg the Lake District, the New Forest and Windsor Great Park.

In your experience, what improvements might be made to increase EH’s effectiveness?

We welcome the initiatives that EH has taken in clarifying the objectives for ‘Enabling Development’. However we would wish to see that EH ensures that in such schemes the quality and sustainability of historic landscapes involved are fully considered and are not foregone in favour of restoration of historic buildings.

How helpful have you found EH staff to be?

Although contact with staff has been of a limited nature, those staff that have been contacted have been very helpful. We appreciate their efforts to involve us in various ways with EH work.

What do you consider should be EH’s priorities for the next 5-10 years?

We welcome the vision outlined in ‘The Historic Environment: A Force for our Future’ which recognises the rich legacy of our historic landscapes as part of our heritage.

EH has a crucial role to play in the delivery of the Woodland Trust’s key corporate objectives (our ‘needs’), the protection of ancient woodland and preventing further loss, the enhancement of woodland biodiversity, the creation of new native woodland, and the public appreciation and understanding of woodland. EH also has a role in relation to the outcomes of the Woodland Trust / ATF partnership, no further avoidable loss of ancient trees, ancient trees should be properly managed, the development of a succession of ancient trees and raising awareness of the value and importance of ancient trees.

We believe that no further loss of ancient woodland and trees should be a priority for action. This would be in accordance with statements set out in A Better Quality of Life and the England Forestry Strategy and will require cross- Government action in relation to legal loopholes and planning guidance, land management and climate change.

We believe that the process of public consultation and participation needs to be improved to ensure a genuine response to perceptions of the historic environment. We were for example disappointed not to have been invited to contribute to the ‘Invitation to Participate’ consultation exercise for The Historic Environment. And although we did contribute extensively to this process do not appear to have been included in the circulation of documents resulting from this consultation. We do not feel that other countryside organisations have been fully consulted about issues relating to historic landscapes.

Does EH work effectively in partnership with other bodies?

The Trust and ATF welcome the emphasis in ‘The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future’, on EH working creatively with other partners and trying new ways of delivering some of its social and environmental objectives.

In your experience, how can EH improve its partnership working?

We would like to see EH initiate new partnerships with non-governmental organisations concerned with maintaining the continuity of our natural landscapes as these are often based on historical and cultural management.
ADDITIONAL POINTS WE WISH TO MAKE NOT COVERED BY THE ABOVE QUESTIONS
The review process itself
A valuable piece of background information to the review would have been a five year end of term report looking at how well EH has done in meeting its existing financial and non-financial targets. This would have helped respondents to the review to be as objective as possible since we are conscious of our response being based largely on impressions rather than even a top line assessment of actual EH performance.