Debate contribution: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr John Stewart on 21 September 2026.

MLA: Mr John Stewart
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 21 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5742611

Text

I was not expecting to get in at this stage. First, I commend the Member for introducing the Bill. Thank you, Peter, for your engagement with the Committee and with me, and we look forward to working with you. I will be brief today. There is little dispute about the importance of protecting our most significant trees and woodlands. As the Member said, Northern Ireland has comparatively low levels of woodland cover, and ancient and long-established woodland represents a particularly valuable, important and irreplaceable part of our natural heritage. Trees contribute not only to biodiversity but to flood management, air and water quality, carbon storage, shade and the character of the landscape and places where we live. Therefore, the Bill raises important issues that deserve to be considered. I will go into those clause by clause, if the Member is happy with that.
Clause 1 would broaden the basis for tree protection orders beyond "amenity" to include "ecosystem services" and makes specific provision for ancient trees. Clause 3 seeks to strengthen enforcement by ensuring that somebody who "knowingly causes or permits" the destruction of or serious damage to a protected tree can be held responsible, rather than liability necessarily stopping with the person physically carrying out the work. Likewise, clauses 4 to 6 would strengthen the replacement regime. Where a protected tree has been unlawfully lost, replacement should mean something in practice. The Bill requires a "heavy standard tree" by way of replacement and provides for monitoring over five years to help ensure that the replacement tree becomes established. I see practical value in clause 7 and its proposed tree protection map, which would be a single, freely accessible source. Having TPOs and conservation areas could therefore give greater clarity to residents, landowners, planners and developers. The Bill sponsor talked about engagement with councils and the fact that some are doing it. Does he know how many? I would be interested to know how far advanced that work is and how much more it might take to get to the point to which we want to get.
I thank the Member for his intervention. It would be interesting to see the level of work being done and cost required in order to do it. As the Member said, many councils are at a well advanced stage. Some are behind, but that clause will bring them up to speed. I have few concerns about the Bill. The first is with clauses 8 and 9. The Chair of the Committee has already made this point, but clause 8 provides that planning permission must normally be refused where development would result in:
"the loss or deterioration of ancient or long-established woodland"
or where development would take place within 15 minutes — sorry, 15 metres — of such woodland:
"unless the applicant demonstrates that there are wholly exceptional circumstances".
Fifteen minutes might be slightly further away. I would be interested to hear the Member's understanding of what that might involve. He may want to return to that in his closing remarks. Clause 9 would also remove permitted development rights for development within the 15-metre area. I entirely understand the objective behind that protection, but we need to scrutinise whether a fixed 15-metre distance is appropriate in every circumstance, what constitutes "wholly exceptional circumstances" and how the provision interacts with necessary infrastructure or other legitimate development. Whether sufficient guidance will be available to ensure consistent decisions across all council areas will be integral to that. My second concern is around resourcing, about which we have already had a discussion. The Bill would create an additional responsibility for councils assessing potential ancient trees, monitoring replacement trees annually for five years, maintaining the information for the tree protection map and taking additional enforcement action. Indeed, the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum accepts that councils and DFI will face:
"additional administrative, staffing and enforcement pressures"
and that councils with "limited specialist expertise" may require additional staff. As the Chair and others have said, councils are already hard-pressed. We have heard about the animal welfare powers that were handed across without money. The Dilapidation Bill responsibilities are now coming down the track, for which the money is not going to be there. I would be interested to hear from the Bill sponsor about whether any assessment has been done with the councils of what they feel would be a modest amount, because every pound is currently a prisoner for our councils and at every level of government.

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

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification