Debate contribution: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 21 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

21 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5742552

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for his intervention. I look to the tree protection map and ask how many trees will ultimately qualify and who will decide that. What will happen if a landowner disagrees? That goes to the point raised by my colleague for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. What will be the appeals mechanism, and what happens if a designation restricts the future use and development potential of privately owned land? Those questions are particularly important to farmers in Northern Ireland. We must ensure that environmental legislation does not inadvertently make ordinary agricultural activity unnecessarily difficult. I say that clearly because I do not believe that, as has been mentioned, there is a desire to do away with significant trees or ancient woodland. In fact, I was interested to note that, on a constituent's land in Portadown, a significant business, the Turkington Group, has planted 36,000 trees in the past 10 years. I do not know of a larger mass planting of trees in Northern Ireland. When it comes to planting trees, responsible businesses and responsible landowners are certainly willing to play their part.

I will indeed.

The Member makes an interesting point. Industry and landowners are often ahead of Departments. That is evident in the example that I gave. While Departments such as DAERA have fallen well behind in this field, many of our constituents are ahead of the game and up for proactive conversation about how they can be better custodians of the environment and the land. Farmers need to maintain drainage, fencing and hedges. They need to manage disease and carry out essential maintenance on their land. We should never create a system whereby routine agricultural activity becomes subject to unnecessary regulatory hurdles simply because a designated tree happens to be nearby. We need to find a balance on that, and the issue will be ensuring that this Bill can. Clauses 8 and 9, which propose restrictions on:

"development within 15 metres of ancient or long-established woodland",

require particular scrutiny, particularly given the significant challenges that we have in building housing.

Yes, of course.

I thank the Member for that intervention. Something that we can perhaps flesh out is how much housing development would fall foul of that clause and whether that would have an impact on delivering against housing need. That is an important point that we could develop throughout the debate and at Committee Stage.

That is another fundamental point. We have all been significantly disappointed by the lack of progress on area development plans in our respective council areas. That should definitely be taken into consideration. We should perhaps also reflect to our local authorities the question of whether the proposed legislation would hinder their ability to produce good, front-facing area plans for the betterment and growth of each area. That is something that we can —.

I will make progress on this point and then come back to the Bill sponsor. There must be clear, straightforward exemptions and an appeals process — that gets to the point that I have made — otherwise, we risk creating blanket restrictions that could have unintended consequences for farmers, landowners and development. I want to make it clear that this is not an argument against protecting trees — I have given examples of where that is already happening, and, indeed, we can do a lot better — but an argument for proportionate legislation. I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

I will give way to the Member if he wants to come in on that point.

I thank the Member for the intervention. I hope that the 'Newtownards Chronicle' is avidly read in his home; it certainly is not in mine. I mean no offence to the 'Newtownards Chronicle'

It is just that there are plenty of variations. It is not a case of one size fits all. Absolutely, at the heart of any such legislation is engagement with members of the local community, because they are custodians of the woodland that the Member referenced. However, there are plenty of other examples of where developers have worked imaginatively with the environment to produce some wonderful housing schemes in close proximity to and in sympathy with some of our ancient woodlands. I know many constituents in those areas who have benefited greatly from such schemes; in fact, they have encouraged them, and some have won awards. There could be much more conversation about that. I accept fully what the Member said about his constituency example, but we need to ensure that whatever legislation we pass now or in the future is fit for purpose. As I say, it is an argument about the need for proportionate legislation. We need to balance environmental protection with the need to build new homes, deliver infrastructure, support farmers and grow our economy. Before introducing new designations and new statutory duties, we should establish whether the existing system is failing, what the proposed system will cost and what impact it will have on planning and landowners. Until those questions have been properly answered, the DUP will reserve judgement on the Bill. We should protect Northern Ireland's trees — I am conscious of the old proverb that from little acorns grow mighty oaks — but we should do so through legislation that is evidence based, proportionate, properly funded and workable.

887 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:36 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification