Scottish Forestry - Felling Licence

[TTS North]

One for my Scottish colleagues.

 

In April 2019 the Scottish Forestry rules changed so that wind-throw was no longer exempt from needing a felling licence.

 

"• Dead trees are exempt but clearance of windblow requires felling permission"

 

However, the 5 cubic metre per quarter exemption from needing a felling licence also still applies - but which takes precedence?

 

If something is wind-throw is it no longer exempt from needing a licence, even if it is less than 5 cubic metres? Or can you still remove wind-throw as long as you stay within the five cubic metres per quarter exemption?

 

Thanks.

[Puffingbilly413]

45 minutes ago, TTS North said:

One for my Scottish colleagues.

 

In April 2019 the Scottish Forestry rules changed so that wind-throw was no longer exempt from needing a felling licence.

 

"• Dead trees are exempt but clearance of windblow requires felling permission"

 

However, the 5 cubic metre per quarter exemption from needing a felling licence also still applies - but which takes precedence?

 

If something is wind-throw is it no longer exempt from needing a licence, even if it is less than 5 cubic metres? Or can you still remove wind-throw as long as you stay within the five cubic metres per quarter exemption?

 

Thanks.

Good question. I’d say the 5 cube exemption is still applicable (although this has a minimum overall size on the woodland - has to be over 0.4 ha I think?) But I’m not certain.

 

i found my local Scottish Forestry guy pretty helpful and quick to respond so an email to your local one would be worth it I’d suggest.

 

edit - I think this para from their online guidance gives the answer:

 

3.10 Windblown Trees
Windblown trees require a Felling Permission unless covered by other exemptions, such as land occupied by a statutory undertaker. 

 

Don’t forget if they’re a danger and need removing for that reason then that’s exempt too.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Puffingbilly413
Added a bit

[daltontrees]

Firstly... there never was a windthrow exemption, but the Commission was lax about it as a matter of informal policy.

 

Then the legislation changed. Now the rules are mostly the same but the new Scottish Forestry seems to want to control windthrow removal as a means of ensuring control over restocking. That's the impression I get for its motives.

 

You can remove dead trees without using up the 5 cube. Then if you move on to windthrow you start to use up your 5 cube a quarter allowance. basically treat them like standing timber unless they have died as a result of windthrow.

 

Be careful about using the 'danger' exemption, it is for prevention of immediate danger only. Since in most situations danger can be avoided by staying away from an area while a Permission application is pondered at leisure by SF, the danger situation is only useful where there are unavoidable targets like roads, overhead lines and buildings. But if the danger exemption is used, it is in addition to the dead and the 5 cube exemptions and any of the other exemptions. Think of the exemptions as an AND list, not an OR list.

 

And finally, the 5 cube exemption does not apply where it's a small native woodland or Caledonian PIne wood. So it's an AND BUT NOT IF list.

 

The exemptions are per ownership. So it's 5 cube a quarter whether you have 10 trees or a million trees.

[Paul in the woods]

18 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

The exemptions are per ownership. So it's 5 cube a quarter whether you have 10 trees or a million trees.

Did that not change in Scotland? I thought it did in England as the advice now states "In any calendar quarter you may fell up to 5 cubic metres (m3) of growing trees on your property without a felling licence, as long as no more than 2m3 are sold"
 

"By property, we interpret this to mean within the immediate property or holding; other properties you may have and that are some distance away could be considered to be a separate property and so have their own 5m³ allowance. The Forestry Commission will not normally consider felling across multiple properties to be cumulative for the purpose of this allowance. Your local Woodland Officer will confirm if more than one count of this exemption may apply"

 

Page 4 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/876642/Tree_Felling_-_Getting_Permission_-_web_version.pdf

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Paul in the woods

[daltontrees]

You have got to appreciate, we now have separate legislation in Scotland and no Forestry Commission. Whatever rules apply or applied to England have no effect here. I have been told the 5 cube is per owner. A close look at the legislation backs this up. The exemption is to the owner, not to the land. The English legislation is worded differently and does seem to support the interpretation there of the exemption being per piece of land.

[Spruce Pirate]

Reading this a thought has occurred (this doesn't happen often).

 

In light of recent blow from Storm Arwen, or whatever it was called, there has been a lot of trees cleared from roads, both public and private.  Now, many of these trees are not technically dangerous, and therefore not exempt from felling licence, and in some cases many more than 5m3 will have been cut.  Should these be subject to a licence?  If so how can roads be cleared in a timely manner?  Public roads could be covered by the Statutory Undertaker exemption I would think but do we now technically need to wait for a licence from SF before clearing tress from a private road? 

[TTS North]

Thanks for the insight guys, I will of course be checking with SF. Scotland does have its own rules, and the 5 cube is per owner, not per site. We are only looking at 40-50 Sitka out of several thousand on a 4 Ha site. Seems daft to have to apply for permission for such a small number of trees.  But the guidance says 'clearance of wind-blow requires felling permission' but then also 'Five cubic metres per quarter exemption maintained'.

 

Thinking about it, it is an exception to needing permission, of course.

 

I could clear the 15 to 20 cube by hand over a year or so, if I wanted to hire in a small harvester operator and get it done in a day then I suppose I would need to apply for permission - which doesn't bother me, but the inevitable restock clause would be a pain 🙄 Daft really.

[Puffingbilly413]

57 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Be careful about using the 'danger' exemption, it is for prevention of immediate danger only. Since in most situations danger can be avoided by staying away from an area while a Permission application is pondered at leisure by SF

True enough. I guess it depends on the local circumstances eg an amenity woodland or one accessed as such by the public would make the danger more immediate.

[TTS North]

2 hours ago, Puffingbilly413 said:

.......

 

3.10 Windblown Trees
Windblown trees require a Felling Permission unless covered by other exemptions, such as land occupied by a statutory undertaker. 

 

......

Yes. The attached letter in this link shows how seriously SF take it these days. It's worth getting right.  SF Letter

[daltontrees]

23 hours ago, Spruce Pirate said:

Reading this a thought has occurred (this doesn't happen often).

 

In light of recent blow from Storm Arwen, or whatever it was called, there has been a lot of trees cleared from roads, both public and private.  Now, many of these trees are not technically dangerous, and therefore not exempt from felling licence, and in some cases many more than 5m3 will have been cut.  Should these be subject to a licence?  If so how can roads be cleared in a timely manner?  Public roads could be covered by the Statutory Undertaker exemption I would think but do we now technically need to wait for a licence from SF before clearing tress from a private road? 

Officially yes permission would be needed. When making the new legislation the numbskulls at Parliament removed the right to remove a nuisance. I took it up wuith the MInister, he fobbed me off with some jobsworth in SF who  the situation didn't occur very often so it wasn't a problem to require applications. I would have thought, it doesn't occur very often so why remove the exemption.