• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT POLICY PANEL – 8 NOVEMBER 2005

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - 14 NOVEMBER 2005

PART I – NOT DELEGATED

11A. REPORT REQUESTING FUNDING TO DEVELOP WOODLAND MANAGEMENT PLANS AND TO SEEK CERTIFICATION FOR THE FORESTRY COMMISSION UK WOODLAND ASSURANCE SCHEME (UKWAS) (DLE)

1. Summary

1.1 This report outlines the background to Three Rivers Woodland Management and identifies the new requirements set out by the Forestry Commission which need to be satisfied before certain grants are available to the Council. It requests the funding necessary to enable the use of consultants in drawing up a Management Plan for the TRDC woodland estate and to enable the appointment of an independent auditor/certification body as required by the Forestry Commission to assess our plan and to make recommendations on how it must be implemented to achieve UKWAS.

2. Details

2.1 The previous Woodland Management Plan covering the whole of the TRDC woodland estate ran up until 2002. While the document was a comprehensive one, it included a comprehensive list of woodland management operations many of which were not implemented. Grant applications and most of those works that were undertaken were undertaken on behalf of TRDC by a forestry consultant who instructed his own contractors. When the Tree Unit took over responsibility for woodland, concerns were raised regarding the bias towards commercial forestry of the works undertaken, i.e. felling significant Oak trees to get a financial return versus management for biodiversity/amenity benefits, and the lack of direct control over contractors working within our woodlands.

2.2 Since woodlands transferred to the Tree Unit, insufficient officer time has been available to survey woodlands and proactively draw up management plans for all of the Councils woodlands.

2.3 A management plan has been drawn up for Croxleyhall Woods together with Forestry Commission grant applications, and this has now been partially implemented, the majority of the works are due to be completed this year.

2.4 A draft management plan has been prepared for Oxhey Woods; however issues relating to officer workloads, coupled with the reorganisation of Countryside Management Services (CMS) who were assisting with this led to the plan never being taken forward and thus no Woodland Management Grant Application made prior to the Forestry Commission closing its old Woodland Grant Scheme in 2004.

2.5 The Forestry Commission have released some of its new grant portfolio, with the remainder due for release during this autumn; however release of the remainder has been postponed a number of times originally due out early 2005. The Woodland Planning Grant and Woodland Assessment Grant are currently available for the drawing up of management plans.

D:\Docs\2018-04-11\07fb4d4a6477227199222b990e81a7cc.doc 2.6 Woodland Management Grant is (when open) an annual payment which is subject to the Council achieving UKWAS Certification.

2.7 In order to achieve UKWAS certification, the Council needs to ensure that it is managing its woodlands in a sustainable way and needs to satisfy detailed criteria set by the Forestry Commission, to comply with the Helsinki Guidelines 1999. This is a significant and ongoing piece of work; however the first steps are to draw up management plans for all council woodlands in the Forestry Commission format, to submit all relevant Forestry Commission grant applications and to appoint an independent auditor/certification body to visit on an annual basis to ensure compliance with the UKWAS.

3. Options/Reasons for Recommendation

3.1 To agree to funding in order that all woodland management plans and grant applications can be completed by the end of this financial year, and that an auditor is appointed at the end of the financial year to give recommendations as to what further work needs to be undertaken to achieve certification under the Forestry Commissions UKWAS. The benefits of this are:

3.2 That TRDC will then be able to demonstrate that it is proactively managing all of its woodlands, and thus will demonstrate best practice.

3.3 That TRDC will through application for Woodland Management Grant secure funding of up to £7,500 per year.

3.4 That further Woodland Improvement Grant applications (and indeed applications for funding from elsewhere) are more likely to succeed through the Forestry Commission for up to 50% funding to improve biodiversity or access within the woodlands.

3.5 Please note that it is only necessary to achieve UK Woodland Assurance to receive Woodland Management Grant from the Forestry Commission. It is still possible at this time to apply for Woodland Improvement Grant, Woodland Creation Grant and Woodland Regeneration Grant without certification under UKWAS.

4. Policy/Budget Implications

4.1 The recommendations in this report are not within the Council’s agreed policy and budgets.

5. Legal, Equal Opportunities, Customer Services Centre, Website and Risk Management Implications

5.1 None specific.

5. Financial Implications

5.1 The cost of employing a consultant to prepare management plans for all TRDC woodlands on the basis of the Forestry Commission format and to complete grant applications for all available parts of the English Woodland Grant Scheme is estimated to cost £10,700. In addition to this it will be necessary if seeking certification under the UKWAS scheme to appoint an auditor/certification body to undertake an audit and to make recommendations as to what further works need to be undertaken to achieve certification. It is estimated that this will cost £1600 for the initial audit and a further £800 per annum. Although the initial audit is considered to be comprehensive and quite complicated, the subsequent ones will be a lot more straight forward and thus cheaper.

D:\Docs\2018-04-11\07fb4d4a6477227199222b990e81a7cc.doc 5.2 TRDC will on certification under UKWAS receive an annual Woodland Management Grant of £7,500. It is anticipated that this will be achieved during 2007/8.

5.3 TRDC will receive a ‘one-off’ Woodland Planning Grant during 2006/7 of £1,600 from the Forestry Commission to assist with the preparation of plans and seeking UKWAS.

Current Future Year Years per CASH IMPLICATION 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 annum £ £ £ £ Revenue Expenditure 10,700 1,600 800 800 Income/savings 0 (1,600) (7,500) (7,500) Net Commitment 10,700 0 (6,700) (6,700)

8. Staffing Implications

8.1 There will be a necessity to proactively manage the work programs identified by this project. It is anticipated that workloads within the Tree Unit will be altered slightly when the position of Landscape Officer is recruited, thus enabling the Arboricultural Officer to deal primarily with all Council owned trees and woodlands.

9. Environmental Implications

9.1 The biodiversity of the District will be improved as a result of the proactive management of its woodland estate, particularly if the Council is Certified under UKWAS.

10. Community Safety Implications

10.1 Proactive management of TRDC woodland estate will mean that trees which may otherwise become a hazard will be more effectively managed, particularly those close to areas accessed by the public.

13. Risk Management Implications

13.1 The following table shows the risks that have been identified and gives an assessment of their impact and likelihood in accordance with the Council’s Risk Management Strategy:-

Description of Risk Impact Likelihood 1 Risk of tree failure causing injury to persons or II D damage to property in the event that woodlands are effectively managed in accordance with UKWAS. 2 Risk of not receiving Woodland Management grant II D aid from Forestry Commission if UKWAS certification is achieved.

Note: 1. For the meaning of the assessment score see the key to the matrix in paragraph 13.2 below. 2. For the definitions of ‘catastrophic’, ‘almost certain’, etc, see the extract from the ‘Risk Management Strategy Statement’ at the end of the agenda.

13.2 The above risks have been prioritised in the matrix below. The Council has determined its aversion to risk. It is prepared to tolerate risks where the

D:\Docs\2018-04-11\07fb4d4a6477227199222b990e81a7cc.doc combination of impact and likelihood are shaded in the bottom left in the table below. The remaining risks require management and monitoring. Those combinations of impact and risk shaded centrally below are less time critical but those shaded to the right require immediate management and monitoring.

d Impact Likelihood

o A

o V = Catastrophic A = Almost Certain

h B i l IV = Critical B = Very High e C k i III = Significant C = High L D Risk 1&2 E II = Marginal D = Low F I = Negligible E = Very Low I II III IV V F = Almost Impossible Impact

13.3 In view of this assessment no action plan is required at this time.

14. Recommendation to Council

14.1 That Council agree to £10,700 being spent from reserves on consultants to draw up management plans for our woodland estate by the end of this financial year, and to seek UKWAS certification from the Forestry Commission.

Background Papers

The UK Forestry Standard: The Government’s Approach to Sustainable Forestry (incorporating Helsinki Guidelines (1993) as Appendix 1).

Report prepared by: Julie Hughes, Principal Landscape Officer

The recommendations contained in this report DO NOT constitute a KEY DECISION.

APPENDICES / ATTACHMENTS

Table entitled ‘Summary of Forestry Commission Grants’ (October 2005)

D:\Docs\2018-04-11\07fb4d4a6477227199222b990e81a7cc.doc

Load more

  4

Copy Link