Debate contribution: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Harry Harvey on 21 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Harry Harvey
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 5742779

Text

The issue is very close to the heart of the Bill sponsor, and I congratulate him on securing passage for his Member's Bill. My party colleagues and I will always support efforts to protect our heritage across Northern Ireland, be that our built heritage or our natural heritage. Our ancient trees and woodlands are a fundamental aspect of our collective story, and it is right that they are valued, maintained and protected, and that legislation underpins that position. That said, it is equally important to ensure that proportionality is central to any legislation and that it is cognisant of the real-world implications for the communities living in and around our woodland areas, particularly those who have protected and tended to them for generations, long before the advent of any legislative protection. It is therefore important that the House works to ensure that the Bill enhances provision in a proportionate fashion, and we will engage with the Bill sponsor on that basis. The principal area of concern is the Bill's impact on development, as outlined in clauses 8 and 9, with the proposed changes to the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015. The enhanced prohibition at clause 9 has the potential to significantly impact on rural settlements and farms that are located in or close to areas of woodland. It is unclear at present as to how extensive the scope of clause 12 would be in real terms and how many settlements and dwellings will fall within its boundaries. I would like clarity on that from the Bill sponsor should the Bill pass its Second Reading. Similarly, I am unclear as to how the Bill will engage practically with landowners, who will be required to replace damaged or dead ancient trees. Will the Bill place the financial burden completely on the landowner, or will there be some form of support? Some landowners and farmers may have considerable numbers of ancient trees on their property, and ongoing maintenance could prove to be an unreasonable burden to place on a small farm holding. Fundamentally, there is little appetite for the destruction or erosion of woodlands, a fact that should be welcomed. However, the development of a small farm building on an established holding that is within 15 metres of a designated zone or in a woodland area, appears to be caught by the Bill in the same way as a larger-impact development. We need to grapple with the concept of proportionality, and whether the House feels that it is reasonable for small rural development to be totally prohibited.
If there are to be exemptions, they must be clearly provided for in the text, as should any appeal process for decisions made by a local authority. In addition, I highlight the inclusion of ecosystem services in the expanded scope of tree preservation orders outlined at clause. New schedule 1A provides a list of defined ecosystem services that appears to provide a very broad scope and could result in a proliferation of TPOs across the country.
The outworkings of that element of clause 1 will require careful consideration by the House. Those elements of the Bill will undoubtedly place an additional financial and administrative burden on local government. It is unclear whether any assessment has been made of that impact, particularly on a planning system that is already hindering economic growth through delayed applications. What will it cost local government to enact the Bill? Will additional burdens be placed on planning applications where applications are in proximity to protected woodland sites and heritage tree designations? What "wholly exceptional circumstances" justifying development, as provided for in clause 8, does the sponsor envisage to be facilitated with that exception? Those are all questions that need to be addressed as the Bill progresses.

627 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