Ancient semi-natural woodland

[Kentish Man]

If a woodland has been labelled "ancient semi-natural woodland", does this mean that it has been legally protected in any way? For instance would there be any rules regarding coppicing or other felling attached to the woodland with an ASNW status, such that would require form-filling by the owner in order to carry out normal good forestry practice?

[docsquid]

AFIK it doesn't confer any status other than being an indicator of the type of woodland i.e. a classification designation rather than a protection designation. ASNW means it has been wooded since at least 1600 (and in practice may be much longer). However ASNW is more likely to be protected by other things, such as SSSI or TPO.

[pahoppy]

Most woodland is protected in some way. If you are coppicing overstood coppice (anything over 150mm in diameter at 1.3 metres above ground) you will need a felling license unless you have a woodland management plan in place. If you are thinning or felling, but not coppicing then you will need a felling license for anything over 100mm at 1.3metres above ground. You can apply for a felling license that lasts up to 5 years.

You can download guidance notes and a felling license form at the Forstry Commission website.

They noprmally take about 10 weeks to go through after a visit from a Forestry Commission Officer.

[MartinD]

felling in general requires a licence for more than 5 cubic metres per quarter - more details at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-5ygfrm

[greyman]

I don't know if its just me but we all seem to have slightly differing ideas of how the legislation and permissions work i.e. sizes of 'tree' from ground level being covered for felling. My understanding was that you needed a felling licence if the trees you want to have down add up to more that 5 cubic Mtr in any one quarter and if more than the 5 Mtr limit they are over 80 mm at chest height (I guess that'll be about 1.3 Mtrs) regardless of whether it was coppice that was over stood, you have a management plan etc. I just show you that you really need to be certain of what your doing and that you have it in writting before you start! Perhaps the information and legislation is unclear or obfusicating on purpose.......but maybe that's just my wierd perspective on life!

Greyman

[Kentish Man]

What I find odd as an outsider is the apparent obsession with 5 cubic metres. It strikes me as very odd indeed that a 100 acre wood and a 1 acre wood are theoretically regulated by the same rules (unless I have missed something). It seems as though the emphasis is on preventing money being made without permission rather than looking after the wood in accordance with what it needs. For example, cutting down 5 cubic metres per quarter in a 1 acre wood would be totally unsustainable, whereas I would imagine, in a wood of 100 acres, its almost negligible to the health of the wood to cut down the same amount in the same time scale. The emphasis I would have thought should be on the sustainability of the woodland in question and not the amount allowable before tax or whatever the real reason is behind the legislation. Tis all very strange.

[tracy]

Hi Kentish man, it is because the rules haven't changed with the ownership changing. You are right, it is all rather odd now.

The thing to remember that our wood - as we all call it- is actually 'our part of a wood'. Although we do all have our own hopes and plans, the well being of the wood still needs to be seen as a whole. If that makes any sense at all!

[Catweazle]

Half of my wood is designated ASNW and half isn't. Seems to make no difference to coppicing and the half that isn't has the oldest trees in it. I can't see any difference or natural boundary between the two designations either.