An Idiot's guide to Ancient Woodland management

[the village idiot]

17 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

Are there any benefits at all? 

 

I'm curious. In 'your' wood it sounds that your aims and objectives are all to the good and a SSSI designation would appear to be a handicap rather than an asset. 

Yes, I think I probably agree with you. We are certainly not pushing to be given the designation. It's worth bearing in mind that not all woodland workers have aims and objectives that are all to the good. Sometimes Woodlands need protecting from us profit hungry distracted Apes.

 

In some cases a SSSI designation is given because of the presence of a single protected species. The manager is then obligated to plan all management activities with the protection of this particular species in mind.

 

To my mind this can sometimes be detrimental to the 'holistic' health of the woodland. Numerous other species can be compromised whilst trying to protect one.

 

I am not a particular fan of 'single species conservation', that being said it is a hugely complicated discussion, with many special interest groups having very strong opinions on it.

 

It's an important topic, and would be fun to explore in the forthcoming ecology posts on this thread.

Edited December 8, 2019 by the village idiot

[devon TWiG]

It can also  be a problem for normal works if such things as bats , badgers  certain bird species  etc etc are  present , with ever increasing rules I fear even more woodland will become neglected as costs for such things as surveys etc rule out any possible small profit that may be gained from working the woodland ....

[The avantgardener]

Blean Woods is managed successfully on both the commercial and habitat creation sides, even though it is a SSSI.  I have worked  there regularly over the last few years and the ecology survey results back up the management decisions.

Sometimes these large interventions can look drastic, but a couple of years later the rewards are all clear.

[Jake Andrews]

Boy this thread moves fast! Just spent the afternoon catching up, thanks for putting the time in VI, im very much enjoying it.

 

Can i ask if you require permission for all of your work from the FC such as the ride widening or is it all part of the long term management plan?

[Gary Prentice]

1 hour ago, devon TWiG said:

It can also  be a problem for normal works if such things as bats , badgers  certain bird species  etc etc are  present , with ever increasing rules I fear even more woodland will become neglected as costs for such things as surveys etc rule out any possible small profit that may be gained from working the woodland ....

I think that's a very valid point DT. You would hope that where it's either evident, or can be shown, that a wood is under good management (such as this one) common sense would prevail and the owner could be left to get on with it (but I somehow doubt it)

[Stubby]

2 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

I think that's a very valid point DT. You would hope that where it's either evident, or can be shown, that a wood is under good management (such as this one) common sense would prevail and the owner could be left to get on with it (but I somehow doubt it)

It seems to me Gary that good old common sense is a rare bird now a days bud .

[the village idiot]

1 hour ago, The avantgardener said:

Blean Woods is managed successfully on both the commercial and habitat creation sides, even though it is a SSSI.  I have worked  there regularly over the last few years and the ecology survey results back up the management decisions.

Sometimes these large interventions can look drastic, but a couple of years later the rewards are all clear.

If you have had anything to do with the forestry activities at Blean then hat's off to you. From what we saw of it, that place is thriving ecologically. If it is making ends meet financially too that is even better.

[the village idiot]

1 hour ago, Jake Andrews said:

Boy this thread moves fast! Just spent the afternoon catching up, thanks for putting the time in VI, im very much enjoying it.

 

Can i ask if you require permission for all of your work from the FC such as the ride widening or is it all part of the long term management plan?

Thanks Jake, I'm really pleased you're enjoying it. 

 

Generally speaking FC permissions are all granted as a direct result of the acceptance of the woodland management plan, where future felling activities are set out. We don't have to apply for separate felling licences every time we start in a new area of the Wood. 

 

If you are working a SSSI the management plan also needs Natural England approval.

 

If you don't have an agreed management plan you can still do felling work but you would need specific felling licences for each job.

 

Some works can be carried out without permissions such as cutting small diameter coppice type material, and ride edge work if the trees have not grown big. Also, you are allowed to fell up to 5 cubic mtrs of tree per quarter (every three months) without a felling licence but this doesn't get you very far in a woodland setting.

 

You don't need permissions for non felling work such as pond restoration.

 

In order to access most of the available woodland management grants you need an approved management plan.

 

I hope this makes sense, it's all a little complicated.

 

My basic advice would be to get an approved management plan if you want to do significant amounts of work within a Woodland. It's a bit of pain early on but well worth it in the long run. The 10 year plan is not set in stone, you can alter it as you go along. You can also access a grant for writing it.

 

Nurturing a good relationship with your FC woodland officer is also time well spent.

[the village idiot]

1 hour ago, Gary Prentice said:

I think that's a very valid point DT. You would hope that where it's either evident, or can be shown, that a wood is under good management (such as this one) common sense would prevail and the owner could be left to get on with it (but I somehow doubt it)

This is pretty much what happens with us. We have been allowed to get on with it. We are required to do visual checks for signs of potential habitat for a few protected species before work commences but it is not an overly taxing task.

 

We may have just got lucky, but the people who oversee our operations are generally very pragmatic and there is little to no interference.

 

The various government departments want to see more woodland management taking place, and in my experience they won't try to stop you if you can show them that your intentions are good.

[openspaceman]

4 hours ago, the village idiot said:

You don't need permissions for non felling work such as pond restoration.

Does this not constitute engineering works?

 

Disposing of the spoil also needing permission or an EA exemption?

 

In practice as long as you stay under the radar...