Debate contribution: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Nick Mathison on 21 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Nick Mathison
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 21 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5742723

Text

I will speak in support of the Tree Protection Bill. I pay tribute to my colleague and friend Peter McReynolds for bringing it forward. It is positive to see a scenario in which we do not just articulate a problem — that problem being that we need more trees and to better protect the trees that we have — but have proposed legislation that offers practical solutions to the issues that we all encounter in our constituencies. Peter set out the provisions of the Bill in detail, and there has been a lot of detailed discussion of them, so I do not intend to go into clause-by-clause detail. It is clear that issues have been raised by Members from across the Assembly, which is absolutely appropriate. It seems to me that there is an open-book approach from the Bill sponsor, who seems very willing to engage with the Committee. I have no doubt that the Committee will get on with the detailed work of addressing those areas of concern at Committee Stage, if the Bill passes its Second Stage. I have been keen to speak in the Second Stage debate, specifically on the provisions in clauses 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. I have already mentioned, during an intervention in the Committee Chair's speech, the campaign that I worked on in my constituency, and I know that the Bill sponsor will be familiar with that campaign through his engagement with the Woodland Trust. The Bill's provisions are relevant to the scenario that I saw play out in my constituency. I am clear that, had the Bill been in place at that time, the whole journey that we went on to try to protect that patch of local woodland would have been very different. From 2019 onwards, I worked with residents in Newtownards — as a councillor and then, following my election, as an MLA — to oppose the development of housing in Tullynagardy Wood. There was a vexed discussion on whether that was an ancient or a long-established woodland. I do not claim to be an expert on those definitions, but it was certainly an area of woodland that was very much valued in the local community, with residents having campaigned for years in opposition to a housing development being built there in a manner that would undoubtedly have altered and damaged its ecosystem. The campaign to oppose the development, which would have gone right up against that area of woodland, was hard-fought. At times, it felt as though the odds were stacked against the local residents, who did not want to see the development go ahead. That is why the provisions in the Bill are so important: they tip the balance in a different direction, with a presumption in favour of protection of ancient and long-established woodland, rather than development. That is why it is so important. When the specific case that I worked on ultimately ended up at the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC), there was a real issue in that residents felt that they were in a scenario in which there was not equality of arms. They were going up against an incredibly well-resourced property developer and their legal team. Again, I think that the provisions of the Bill would shift that balance in a really positive way.
On that local issue, I was delighted that the PAC ruled to uphold the appeal and confirmed that the site could not be developed, principally based on planning policies around open space. The Bill would ensure that, in that local context and in other areas where there is ancient or long-established woodland, that fight would not need to happen again, that development would not be able to go ahead in that 15-metre buffer zone and that planning permission would need to be refused in those scenarios. That would be a substantially enhanced protection of our long-established woodlands, and I hope that, if this Bill passes and goes into law, it will go a very long way towards ensuring the long-term protection of those sites. The Committee Chair said that there need to be local considerations and that every scenario is different, but I think that every site of long-established or ancient woodland in Northern Ireland deserves protection. I really do welcome the protections that the Bill is proposing, because they would mean that local objectors should not have to navigate the complex and bureaucratic planning process, making representations to council committees and placing themselves in the highly technical and challenging environment of a Planning Appeals Commission hearing. Rather, I think that the Bill will give us the opportunity to move to a space where there is simply a clear presumption in favour of protection of these crucial sites, something that is long overdue in a planning system that seems, in many cases, to invariably favour the developer over the natural environment.
Yes, I absolutely agree. With that particular planning application, the detailed scrutiny was undertaken through the planning process of the environmental impacts and of the ecosystem of that woodland, and the multiple reports that came from that, was in itself a very long process. We then had to go through the process that led to a planning committee decision being taken before going to the Planning Appeals Commission. Undoubtedly, a huge amount of resource was expended on that application when, in fact, every single political representative on the council was clear that they did not support development of the site. I think that this Bill would enable those processes to be short-circuited, working on the presumption in favour of preservation rather than development of the woodland. I do not disagree with the points that have been made that we desperately need housing and investment in our infrastructure in Northern Ireland; nobody in this Chamber will disagree with that. However, my question is whether we need it within 15 metres of ancient woodland. I think that most of us could live without development in that context. Once we lose trees in the woodland or once the ecosystem is disrupted because development is going in next to it, they do not come back. It is lost forever at the short-term gain of getting housing in a very particular small area around a patch of woodland. There is a risk that you could lose such a vital and precious natural resource, and I think that the benefits that the Bill brings far outweigh the benefits of what would inevitably — the Bill sponsor has highlighted this — be relatively small areas where development could go ahead, and it frees up planners to make decisions that support our natural environment rather than harm it. Protecting sites of ancient and long-established woodland is crucial. As highlighted by the Bill sponsor, we have some of the poorest tree cover of any region in these islands. Short-term thinking that prioritises housing development going into those woodland sites is short-sighted because, when they are lost or the areas and the ecosystems around their boundaries are damaged, they really are damaged permanently. You cannot go back and repair that damage.
It is critical to recognise this: when we think about the context that we are in — climate change and the ongoing challenges around the loss of biodiversity and habitat — kicking decisions down the road and deferring action to another time is not good enough. The Bill affords us the opportunity now to take practical and pragmatic steps to ensure that the sites are protected. I have no doubt that Members across all the parties and constituencies represented in the Chamber will know of such sites in their constituencies. They will know those areas of ancient woodland. Regrettably, there are not as many of them as there should be, because they have not been well protected over the years. Members will know those sites of long-established woodland in their constituencies. I hope that a point that everyone can unite around is that those sites absolutely deserve protection. I know from my engagement with the Woodland Trust that the case study of Tullynagardy Wood featured strongly in its thinking and in that of the Bill sponsor when developing the Bill. We all know about the planning process in our council areas. The arguments with the planners became incredibly vexed. They became technical and came down to very subjective interpretations of planning policy around an issue on which the public's perspective and view were clear, as were those of the elected council members. I hope that a Bill that could give effect to those objections where the presumption is in favour of the protection rather than the development would be a welcome development. I hope that Members will agree that protecting our woodlands would be a fitting legacy of this Assembly mandate. It seems like a fitting issue for all parties to unite around and support. I hope that the Bill can progress through Second Stage. I have no doubt that the technicalities and some of the more detailed queries and concerns will be dealt with in Committee. Committee Stage is the appropriate stage for that. I urge Members to support the principles of a Bill that will, hopefully, preserve and protect our ancient and long-established woodland.

1,538 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