Agenda item

The Chairman thanked the Landscape Delivery Officer, Sue Mullinger who was in attendance to update Members in relation to the recommendations from the Scrutiny Review of the Management of the Woodland Estate Owned by Durham County Council (for copy see file of minutes).

The Landscape Delivery Officer reminded Members of the 3 key areas, including the management of DCC Woodland, with the Council’s Forestry Team providing professional advice on carrying out maintenance of the woodland.  It was added that another area was that of the number of woodlands in positive management, in agreement with the Forestry Commission and that there was a number of issues, such as EU grants, following the EU Referendum result.  It was added that part of the process involved the registration of land on the rural land register, a long winded-process, in order to then receive grants to be able to fund the production of management plans.  It was explained that the application for those grants would close at the end of September.

Members noted that a private company, The Stobart Group had approached the Council in relation to managing the land and also produce the management plans at no cost to DCC.  There will be a trial period during which Stobart’s will take the low grade timber for use in their biomass facilities and will manage the less desirable woodland sites.  It was added that the company had worked with other Local Authorities and DCC would speak to those in respect of how their arrangements were working in practice.

The Landscape Delivery Officer noted the third key area was that of working with partners to be able to stimulate private foresting companies and it was noted that the Council was working with the Woodland Trust, Northwoods and the Forestry Commission in terms of the “Woodland Return Durham”.  Members noted the “planting up” of existing woodland and the management of woodland with volunteers and communities, as well as private owners.  It was explained that DEFRA had noted they would not use their funds to match Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), although the Woodland Trust were looking to provide some funding and therefore it was hoped that a project could be submitted at the end of November. 

The Chairman thanked the Landscape Delivery Officer for the updated position and asked what opportunities there would be in terms of employment and volunteers.

The Landscape Delivery Officer explained that the Woodland Return Project included a team of people and employers, working with the Woodland Trust to look to stimulate the woodland economy to create jobs in managing the woodlands, transport and other areas.

Councillor O Millburn asked what the timescales were in terms of replanting in areas which had been logged out, and whether there were issues in terms of snow drift in these areas.  The Landscape Delivery Officer noted that in terms of DCC woodlands, the operations would be such to carry out a managed thin-out of an area and not large scale felling and clearance as in the past when areas were not managed there was detriment in terms of important flora.  It was added that if there was a specific site that had been clear felled, this would be a private woodland, with Councillor O Milburn noting the area she had in mind may be Coal Authority land. 

Councillor I Jewell asked what the process was in terms of replanting.  The Landscape Delivery Officer noted that if there are no biodiversity issues then we must replant, the same area’s worth of trees.

Councillor G Holland asked if there had been any exposure in terms of operation as a result of the “Brexit” vote.  The Landscape Delivery Officer noted the main impact would be on the EU grant process which not only provided funding, but also acted as a lever in terms of bringing in other funding such as HLF, however as noted some private firms were coming forward with offers to help. 

Councillor G Holland noted he felt if there was an effect from Brexit then this should be an area that Overview and Scrutiny should monitor very closely.  The Landscape Delivery Officer noted that in order to access grants there was a need for a woodland management plan to be in place and this required land to be registered on the rural land register.  It was reiterated that private companies had come forward in terms of helping with management plans and it was hoped to move forward to some trial sites and then report back on progress with these accordingly.  Councillor J Armstrong reminded Members that EU grants that had been signed off now would be secure, however, going forward this could not be guaranteed.  Councillor J Armstrong added that the Government’s Autumn Statement in November would set out their priorities, although their priorities may not be the same as the Council’s.

The Landscape Delivery Officer explained that as Local Authorities were no longer eligible for many grants, the issue was in being able to bring together funding in order to be able to lever in additional funding.

Councillor P May asked whether the Stobart Group were carrying out a mapping exercise of all the woodland in the County and when did a group of trees become a wood.  The Landscape Delivery Officer noted there was not a strict definition for woodland and that the Stobart Group would look at sites in terms of their commercial viability, and it was believed they were proactive across the UK.  Councillor P May asked if members of the public came forward with offers to thin out an area of woodland for amenity would this be looked at.  The Landscape Delivery Officer noted that if the scale was economically viable and landowners could be brought together it may be possible.

Councillor J Clark asked in terms of negotiations with the Stobart Group and the potential for job creation and asked if those discussions with other Local Authorities that had worked with them had given any information in this respect.  Councillor J Clark suggested that it would be important to build this in, with links to our local colleges such as Houghall, in terms of employment and apprenticeship opportunities.  The Landscape Delivery Officer noted this, adding that the Authority would work with partners in order to look for opportunities in this regard.

The Overview and Scrutiny Officer noted a typographical error in the recommendations within report referring to the Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which should have read Environment and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  Members noted and resolved accordingly.

Resolved:

(i)              That the Environment and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee note the update report.

(ii)             That the Environment and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee receive a further update report at a future meeting.