Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): I welcome Mr Andrew Weatherall, principal policy officer for woodlands and forestry at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; Mr Gregor Fulton, tree and woodland adviser at the National Trust; Mr Paul Armstrong, public affairs manager at the Woodland Trust; and Mrs Rosemary Mulholland, head of nature recovery at Ulster Wildlife. Andrew is appearing remotely. You are all very welcome. Before we proceed, may I get Committee members' agreement that Hansard record the session?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Andrew cannot currently hear us, but I will now hand over to you to make opening presentations, after which members will ask questions.

Mr Paul Armstrong (Woodland Trust): Thank you for the opportunity to provide evidence as part of the Committee's scrutiny of the Tree Protection Bill. Northern Ireland has the lowest woodland cover in the UK and Ireland, at just 8·6%. That compares with 10% in England, 11% in the Republic of Ireland, 15% in Wales and 19% in Scotland. In fact, Northern Ireland has one of the lowest levels of woodland cover in the developed world. Furthermore, we have some of the lowest level of tree cover in towns and cities compared with that in the rest of the UK and in the Republic of Ireland. Although it is vital that we plant more trees and woodland in the right places, that must go hand in hand with protecting the most important trees and woods that we already have, in particular our ancient trees and woodland and our long-established woodland.

Ancient woodland is land that has been wooded continuously since the 1600s, while long-established woodland is land that has been continuously wooded since at least 1830. Those are well-established definitions and are consistent with approaches used elsewhere in the UK and in the Republic of Ireland. Ancient and long-established woodland is scarce, making up fewer than 10,000 hectares, or 0·73% of Northern Ireland's land area. Within that, woodland that can be identified with a high degree of certainty as being ancient amounts to just 549 hectares, or approximately 0·04% of our land area, so protecting ancient and long-established woodland is about not just restricting large areas of land but safeguarding a very small number of irreplaceable habitats. Ancient and long-established woodland is about not just the trees in it but the unique soils and ecosystems that take centuries to develop but minutes to destroy. Once they are lost, they cannot be replaced.

The 'Back on the Map' inventory, which has been shared with the Committee, highlights the fact that, since 1960, approximately 1,500 hectares, or 13%, of ancient and long-established woodland has been lost. One of the primary threats is development. Although the strategic planning policy statement (SPPS) seeks to avoid:

differing interpretations of planning policy can arise in practice. As a result, development proposals affecting such habitats continue to be brought forward and, in some instances, are recommended for approval despite the policy protections that exist. That is one reason that stronger statutory protections are needed.

Each organisation represented here today submitted a written response to the call for evidence that identifies areas in which the Bill could be refined through the scrutiny process to ensure that it is effective, proportionate and workable in practice. In addition to stronger legal protections for ancient and long-established woodland, we support the Bill's proposals to strengthen and enhance tree preservation order (TPO) legislation. There are currently just over 1,000 TPOs across Northern Ireland.

In 2023, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) highlighted the fact that, in the three-year period from 2019, councils received reports of 144 alleged breaches of TPOs, yet none resulted in any formal enforcement action. Following the publication of the ombudsman's report, the Woodland Trust sought updated information from all 11 councils on the operation of the TPO system between 2023 and 2025. Although responses to that request are still being reviewed and analysed, initial findings suggest that 59 alleged TPO breaches were reported during the period but that there were only eight enforcement actions and no prosecutions. Although further investigation and analysis of the findings is required, they raise important questions about the effectiveness and consistency of the current tree protection regime and reinforce the case for strengthening the system.

One such proposal in the Bill is to make it an offence to cause or permit the breach of a TPO. That approach already operates in England, where it has supported several successful prosecutions and stronger enforcement outcomes. The provision recognises that the responsibility for unlawful works often extends beyond the person holding a chainsaw to those who instructed, authorised or permitted the work to take place. That would strengthen accountability and act as a meaningful deterrent against future breaches. If the provision in the Bill were amended to remove the word "knowingly", there would be opportunities for councils in Northern Ireland to learn from their counterparts in England and to share best practice with them.

As well as strengthening it, we want to see the TPO system be enhanced to provide protection for Northern Ireland's few ancient trees. It is our view that the Bill's proposed pathway to protect ancient trees within a strengthened TPO system is appropriate. Many ancient trees have features such as hollowing that, under the current TPO system, may deem them unsuitable for protection. Northern Ireland has over 2,000 legally protected historic monuments, where, quite rightly, even disturbing the ground requires statutory consent. The Woodland Trust's ancient tree inventory identifies approximately 150 ancient trees, many of which have no statutory protection. We legally guard stone ruins while leaving our oldest and most important trees completely exposed.

Finally, we recognise the importance of infrastructure, agriculture, housing and economic development. Tree protection should not be viewed as being a choice between development and environmental protection. Rather, it is about ensuring that decisions that affect our oldest, rarest and most valuable trees and woodland properly reflect their environmental, cultural and public value. The Bill provides an opportunity to strengthen those protections while remaining compatible with responsible development and line management.

Mrs Rosemary Mulholland (Ulster Wildlife): Thank you, Deputy Chair, for giving us the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee today. Ulster Wildlife manages several woodland nature reserves. We strongly support the Bill's aims to strengthen protection for ancient trees and ancient and long-established woodland, to improve accountability for damage and to modernise the tree preservation order system.

Ancient and long-established woodlands are among Northern Ireland's most valuable habitats. Their importance lies not only in their trees but in the complex living systems of soils, fungi, plants and animals that have developed over centuries. With only 0·73% of Northern Ireland covered by ancient and long-established woodland, the remaining fragments are exceptionally precious. Such habitats support much-loved species, such as the red squirrel and the bluebell. Ancient trees, which are the mother ships of our landscapes, provide cavities, loose bark, dead wood and complex canopies, while undisturbed woodland soils contain fungi, microorganisms and invertebrates that recycle nutrients, store carbon, manage water and increase resilience to extreme weather.

That ecological complexity cannot be recreated within a meaningful human timescale. An old oak's characteristics may take two centuries to develop, while woodland soils can take hundreds of years to form. Young trees planted elsewhere may replace tree numbers, but they cannot replace the habitat. Those woodlands and trees are foundations for nature's recovery. They provide specialist species and locally adapted genetic material that can spread into new woodland. Protecting older woodland therefore complements ambitious woodland creation and helps investment deliver lasting biodiversity gains. Ancient trees and woodland are also valued community and cultural assets that strengthen people's connection with place. We recognise the importance of housing, transport, agriculture and industry, but, if carefully planned, development need not come at the expense of irreplaceable habitats.

The proposed 15-metre buffer is important, because damage can result from altered hydrology, dead wood removal, soil compaction and harm to root systems, as well as from direct felling. We understand that decisions can be taken on a case-by-case basis, but the important thing is not to cause damage. Avoiding loss or deterioration must come before mitigation or compensation.

We welcome the provisions to improve the effectiveness, transparency and consistency of tree protection across Northern Ireland and to address long-recognised weaknesses in planning and enforcement. We strongly support making it an offence to cause or permit a breach of a tree preservation order. Responsibility for committing such an offence should include those who commission, authorise or allow damaging work to take place. Stronger legislation would safeguard important trees, including the around 150 ancient trees that are recorded on the ancient tree inventory, while a single public tree protection map would support transparent and informed decisions.

In conclusion, ancient and long-established woodlands are not just relics of the past but foundations for nature's recovery. They sustain communities that have been assembled over centuries and give new woodland the best chance of becoming rich in wildlife. Protecting those habitats and ancient trees is not an obstacle to responsible development but a practical investment in nature recovery, climate resilience, healthy soils, cultural assets and successful future woodland creation.

Mr Gregor Fulton (National Trust): Thank you, Deputy Chair, for the opportunity to contribute to the Committee's consideration of the Tree Protection Bill. The National Trust strongly supports the Bill's overall aims. As you have heard, Northern Ireland has the lowest woodland cover of any part of UK and one of the lowest levels of woodland cover in the developed world. Although we need to plant more trees, we must also do a better job of protecting the most valuable trees and woodlands that already exist, particularly our ancient trees and long-established ancient woodlands. Those habitats are irreplaceable. Once lost, they cannot be recreated. We welcome the Bill's proposals to modernise and strengthen the tree preservation order system, to improve public access to information through having a tree protection map, to recognise the wider ecosystem services that trees provide and to create stronger protections for ancient trees and woodlands. We also support measures that are intended to improve enforcement and accountability where protected trees are unlawfully damaged or removed.

Our support for the Bill, however, does not mean that we believe it to be perfect as drafted. One area of concern relates to the provisions that protect ancient and long-established woodlands. We support stronger statutory protection but believe that the drafting could be refined to provide greater clarity and certainty for decision makers, developers and landowners alike. We would like to see consideration given to a test that allows development to proceed where it can be clearly demonstrated that it will not result in the loss of, deterioration of or damage to those irreplaceable habitats. We also believe that replacing the term "wholly exceptional circumstances" with the more established concept of:

could provide a clearer and more legally robust framework. We also have some concerns about the Bill's implementation. The success of the Bill will depend not only on new powers but on councils having the resources, guidance and confidence to use those powers effectively. Clear guidance will be particularly important for ecosystem services, ancient woodland identification and assessing potential impacts on those habitats.

Finally, we would like to see consideration be given to removing the word "knowingly" from the proposed offence of causing or permitting a breach of a tree preservation order. That would align Northern Ireland more closely with the position in England and strengthen accountability where protected trees are unlawfully damaged or removed. Overall, the National Trust supports the direction of travel set out in the Bill. Our suggested amendments are intended to improve clarity, effectiveness and workability, not to weaken protections. The Committee has an opportunity to deliver legislation that will safeguard Northern Ireland's oldest and most important trees and woodlands and provide a practical framework for responsible development and land management.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Andrew, can you now hear me OK?

Mr Weatherall: Yes, I can, thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Excellent. Are you OK to say a few words at this stage?

Mr Andrew Weatherall (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds): Yes. My colleagues have covered most of it, Deputy Chair, so I will be very brief. First, I apologise for not being there in person. I am the RSPB's lead on woodland policy across the four countries of the UK, so it is very difficult to be everywhere at once. This morning, I was at a wildfire resilience summit. Apologies, but thank you for the opportunity to brief the Committee this way.

Based on my overview of UK woodland policy, I will talk briefly about buffer zones, ecosystem services and wholly exceptional circumstances. First, on buffer zones, I will make the point that the 15-metre buffer zone is generally recognised as being a minimum distance. The guidance in England talks about the need for the buffer zone to be larger if it is near to housing, for example. It is also known as the root protection area, and that is crucial to understanding what the buffer zone is for. It is not just a buffer but where the roots of an ancient tree or ancient woodland trees are. That is therefore absolutely crucial to the ongoing protection of ancient woodland, and the Committee heard from my colleagues how few ancient woodlands and ancient and veteran trees there are.

Secondly, on inserting "or ecosystem services" after "amenity" in section 122(1) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, it is really important to remember that the definition of "ecosystem services" is extremely well defined at international level by scientists. It came out of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 and was followed up on in 2011 by the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, which was co-funded by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. It is therefore a really strong structure for thinking about something, whereas I consider "amenity" to be a less well defined entity for consideration of things.

Thirdly, I will say something about the term "wholly exceptional circumstances" in the Bill. The national planning policy framework, which was revised recently in England, clearly sets out what the exceptional reasons are, so, rather than use a term in the Bill without further defining it, that would provide clarity.

Like my colleagues, I am really passionate about the protection of ancient woodlands and ancient and veteran trees, and I welcome the Bill. I thought, however, that I should give some clarifications at the outset.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): No problem, Andrew. Thank you for taking the time to join us remotely. We really appreciate it. I thank each of you, not only for coming along today and giving evidence but for your engagement up to this point. At Second Stage, all members contributed using the very useful information that you provided. You will be aware that there is broad support for the Tree Protection Bill in principle. It is therefore good to have had presentations from you today and for you to take our questions. I will go first and then bring in members.

Gregor, the National Trust's response to the call for evidence outlined at least three amendments that it would welcome. I do not want to pit you all against one another at this stage, but I am interested to get from the other representatives their thoughts on those initial proposals for amendments and on any additional amendments that you, Gregor, think may strengthen the Bill.

Mr Armstrong: Thank you, Deputy Chair. I was just asking my colleagues whether I could go first, because I have a list. [Laughter.]

I have a shopping list of amendments, which I will go through on a clause-by-clause basis. I ask my colleagues to jump in at any point. If they disagree, we will disagree in the open.

On clause 1, in our opening statements, we talked about removing from clause 3 "knowingly" as it relates to the clause 1 offence of "causing or permitting". It is currently an offence in England to cause or permit the breach of a TPO. We shared two good examples of successful cases in England in which "cause or permit" has led to a prosecution resulting from a breach of a TPO. The Bill as drafted uses "knowingly", and that creates a difference between what we know works in England and what we would potentially have here in Northern Ireland. If we were to remove "knowingly", not only would we adopt a system that is much more closely aligned with that in England but we would have a huge opportunity to aid the implementation of clause 1, because we can learn a lot and share practice from our colleagues in England on how that is being done there. They have been doing this for many years, and there is an opportunity, with the Woodland Trust's being a UK-wide organisation, to facilitate some of that sharing of best practice. We have contacts with local authorities throughout the UK, so, having got into the detail, we feel that removing "knowingly" would align us with the English system.

On clause 2, local authorities had concerns about the six-month provisional TPO automatically being confirmed. The reason that we support that is that we do see provisional TPOs being made and then lapsing after six months. I have been submitting a number of freedom of information requests on the TPO system, perhaps much to councils' annoyance. In one council, there is a case in which a provisional TPO lapsed and had to be renewed. It takes a lapse of only a couple of days for those trees to be lost. A possible solution is therefore to extend the provisional TPO period from six months to 12 months and not automatically confirm it. We have an objective to make the clause more workable.

I have already covered removing "knowingly" from clause 3.

Clauses 4 and 5 relates to the duty to replace trees. When someone breaches a TPO, councils have a discretionary power to order replacement tree planting. It is not a mandatory, power. As the Bill is currently drafted, that enforcement duty is placed on the landowner and not necessarily on the person who breached the TPO. We would like the clause to state that not only is it enough to plant a tree but that that tree becomes established. That is why we support a five-year establishment period. To prove that, the person who has the duty imposed on them to replace the tree could send a geotagged photo to the council. The clause could be amended so that, if they do not do that, the council could issue a fixed penalty notice, which would cover the cost of inspecting that tree. Again, it is a discretionary power, and our initial findings are that, in the past three years, councils have issued zero tree replacement notices as a result of a TPO breach, so, at present, it is a power that is not being used.

Clause 7 is about having a single TPO map. The problem that we have is that, if someone lives in one council area, they may have access to information about where the TPOs are but that if they live in another council area, they may not. It is inconsistent, and that is unacceptable. Having one map is probably the best approach for Northern Ireland to take. If that is not practical, however, councils could be compelled to have a map. If the Department feels that having a single map is not practical, there could be an amendment made to the clause to make sure that people who live in, for example, the Ards and North Down Borough Council area, the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area or the Mid Ulster District Council area have access to an online map. In 2026, the ability to access that kind of information online is expected, so we need to make sure that access and standards of data are consistent.

Gregor and Rosemary touched briefly on clause 8. We do not support clause 8 and, to some extent, clause 9. We would rather that, if a development will lead to loss of or damage to ancient or long-established woodland, it should be refused. As the clause are drafted at the minute, all development on or within 15 metres of ancient or long-established woodland would be refused. The National Trust owns ancient woodland. All our organisations own such sites, and we apply for planning permission for, for example, paths and access. On a practical level, references to "15 metres" therefore need to be amended.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Are you saying that "15 metres" should be removed and that the wording about the impact should be changed?

Mr Armstrong: Yes. It will come as no surprise to you that we watched the Second Stage debate closely, in which you talked about the 15 metres. On the whole, the term "loss or deterioration" has been debated, as has "degradation". In the strategic planning policy framework, the terminology used is:

If you were to amend clause 8 to state instead:

it would be refused. If you had that in the clause, you would not need a buffer, and the buffers could instead go into guidance. We could take the standing guidance from England, which states that the distance should be 15 to 100 metres. The distance should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Having it be 15 metres is the bare minimum. If the clause were to be amended, it would mean that someone who lives next to ancient or long-established woodland, could apply for planning permission but would need to make sure that any development would not lead to "loss or deterioration", or, as I have just suggested, the amended wording from the strategic planning policy statement.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Do you believe that that would satisfy the Department for Infrastructure? We heard that it has concerns about the impact that it might have generally on any applications.

Mr Armstrong: You have got me.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): You might not speak for them, but you heard their concerns.

Mr Armstrong: They will be watching this, so I do not want to speak on their behalf. I hope so. I think it should. It allows a degree of flexibility, particularly in the buffer. There are other developments that will have a bigger impact on ancient woodland that may need a bigger buffer. If we take the guidance that has already been done in England on that buffer, with the principle that is in SPPS —. In our view, there were questions. Peter asked the Department questions about that. In our view, the current policy does not work. The planning application at Tullynagardy should never have got as far as it did. Given how little ancient woodland and long-established woodland is left, we need to afford it the highest level of protection. The wording that I have suggested allows a degree of interpretation about the buffer, and there are developments that could be carried out, such as fencing or whatever, that would not lead to loss or deterioration.

Whilst clause 11 is very flattering, we would remove the definition of an ancient tree by the Woodland Trust. There should be guidance or secondary legislation to set out a definition. That definition could be taken from the clear one that is set out in the 2024 biodiversity gain regulations in England. The Woodland Trust should not set the definition of an ancient tree.

Finally, on clause 14, there should be a phased approach to the commencement on a clause-by-clause basis to make sure that the councils have time to equip themselves and get ready for the changes to the system, but we need to make sure that some protections come in immediately to prevent unintended consequences. That is my list. My colleagues may want to add to that.

Mr Fulton: No. You covered it very nicely, Paul.

Mrs Mulholland: We agree with that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Are you happy that everything was covered, Rosemary? Andrew is nodding intently. Are you content?

Mr Armstrong: There are no disagreements.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): That is good to hear; it is a rarity in this place. You have covered my next question. We are keen to see ancient woodlands and trees protected, but also to achieve a balance that allows for development. Do your amendments and the Bill strike a balance to protect ancient woodland but also provide opportunities for development?

Mr Armstrong: Yes.

Mrs Mulholland: It is also about the nature of the development.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): I appreciate that.

Mrs Mulholland: Developments of overriding public importance will carry more weight than somebody putting a path around their house. Rather than saying, "Oh, that would mean that people could not do this, this and this", it very much depends on the nature of the development.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): That is good. Anything else?

Mr Armstrong: The Department talked briefly about the term "wholly exceptional" and referenced where it came from in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As we have discussed the Bill and looked at the alternatives —. The imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) test was mentioned by the Department in the previous session. That is an established concept. We are trying to protect ancient and long-established woodland but recognise that there are instances where infrastructure or important developments need to take place, and that should be considered. The habitat regulations already operate like that in Northern Ireland. Ancient woodland is a rare and irreplaceable habitat, and that could be a potential route to allow those "wholly exceptional circumstances", rather than using the NPPF definition that is used in England. I am suggesting how some of the concerns that have been raised could be addressed.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): OK. That is useful. I have a final question. Many of the Bill's provisions will rely on guidance and regulations from the councils and the Department. Are there any areas where further clarification or supporting guidance will be particularly important to ensure that the legislation operates as intended? You talked about the transition period in clause 14 and the phased approach. A lot of work will need to be done on the back of that. Where do you see the most concerns coming from?

Mrs Mulholland: For us, it is the immediate protection of the ancient and long-established woodland. The TPO system will take longer to get through, but we must protect the most important things first and let the other work come after that.

Mr Armstrong: I suppose it would be a definition of an ancient tree. A definition similar to that in England, using the biodiversity gain regulations, is needed, as opposed to the Woodland Trust defining what an ancient tree is. On "causes or permits", we can use the guidance that is being used in England. "Ecosystem services" has come up in previous debates. "Ecosystem services" is a term, but we support it on the basis of benefits beyond amenity. You could argue that every tree has amenity value, just like you could argue that every tree has ecosystem service value. At the moment, amenity is determined using an assessment called the tree evaluation method for preservation orders (TEMPO). That would need to be updated if the criteria for making a TPO —. It was interesting to hear that, in the South, it is "amenity or the environment", which could be a workable solution as well.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): OK. Do you have anything to add, Gregor?

Mr Fulton: No, but Andrew had his hand up for a wee second.

Mr Weatherall: Thank you. On ecosystem services, I was also interested by the mention of "amenity or the environment" in the previous session. As I said in my introductory bit, the ecosystem services definition has been quite well-established internationally by a panel of scientists and is used in the UK national ecosystem assessment. To me, "amenity or the environment" sounds woollier than something that is so internationally defined. Whichever term you use, it is about making sure that the Bill carefully clarifies what exactly it means and refers to. I would be happy with "amenity or the environment", but then you need to define where you limit "the environment".

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): OK. I have one final point before I bring in Paul, who I know has to go. In the previous session, we talked about mapping, and there was a discussion with the Department about whether there would be one standardised map that the Department runs or 11 council maps that potentially overlay one another. Do you have any thoughts on that? It would only be as good as the data that is put into it and the way that it is maintained. Do you have any thoughts on how best to do that in order to map trees properly and ensure that there is consistency across the board?

Mr Armstrong: Nine of the 11 local authorities have TPO maps at the moment, so they are logging TPOs. The best solution for members of the public is to have one place to go. Breaching a TPO is a criminal offence, so have one place to go, with councils remaining responsible for uploading the data to that map. That aligns with the recommendation made by the Public Services Ombudsman three years ago to have one map. Data and responsibilities are complex. A compromise would be mandating the councils —. At the moment, they have to make the data publicly available, so you can go into their office to look at that or they can email it to you. Mandating that they have a website with a minimum standard of data and that it should be updated at minimum intervals to make sure that it is consistent would be a reasonable alternative. However, having a single map is definitely the best approach.

Mr Fulton: I will come in on that as well. Consistency is key. At the minute, when you to try to find tree preservation order maps, some councils are brilliant, but with other councils it is really hard to find them. That is the experience of experts looking for them, never mind members of the public. Consistency will be key if the councils have to have separate maps.

Mr Boggs: My question was mainly about the 15-metre buffer. During the session with the Department, we touched on whether that will have a negative impact or whether it is suitable. You have covered that, so I will not ask about it. I apologise that I have to tear on, but thank you very much for coming in.

Mr McMurray: I had a question about the maps to try to disguise my very parochial question about the "Bendy Tree". You have answered the question on the maps really well. I looked through the map document that you sent. Nothing is new under the sun: we have been talking about this since the 1600s. Do you know what I mean? That is really important. I err on your side when it comes to having a single map. That seems to be the most logical approach. It was interesting to hear your thoughts on that.

I am from South Down. We have lots of lovely trees, and we have the loveliest tree of the year at the minute. It has not been without issues regarding TPOs. How would the Bill protect iconic trees like the "Bendy Tree", which is a wych elm?

Mr Armstrong: I can answer that, because the Woodland Trust runs the Tree of the Year competition. It is the first time that Northern Ireland has won Tree of the Year, and it is our 30th anniversary in Northern Ireland, so that is a really nice way to mark that. There was an application to protect the "Bendy Tree" in Newcastle with a tree preservation order, and it was refused on the basis that the tree has hollowing, which is a feature of ancient trees. That is where the Bill as drafted at the minute would provide a pathway. There was talk of an ancient tree or heritage tree designation, but if the TPO system was fixed and made fit for purpose, it would be adequate to protect ancient trees. There is no need to create a new system, just a pathway for ancient trees to be protected.

As it stands, the first test for a TPO is expediency, which is whether that protection is needed to protect that tree. And then it is about amenity, but on that assessment they look at the health of the tree. The ancient tree pathway in the Bill does not require it to be expedient. It just requires the tree to be ancient, and that is determined on the definition that we have talked about, but also by our survey of the tree. The "Bendy Tree" was refused TPO status because of its hollowing, which is a feature of ancient trees. If we had that pathway, that tree would be given the recognition that it deserves. I deliberately made the point in my opening statement that we protect stones and scheduled monuments, which we should — it is important, and I am not saying that we should not — but we should also protect our oldest and most important trees because, as I said, there are 150 identified on the ancient tree inventory. Hopefully, that answers your question.

Mr McMurray: Yes. Thank you, Chair.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Is that it?

Mr McMurray: Yes. [Laughter.]

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): That was short, Andrew. You usually go on.

Mr McMurray: What?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): In a good way.

Mr McMurray: They were simple questions.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, everyone, for your views. It is good to hear pretty much overwhelming support for the principles of the Bill. I said in the session with DFI that this has been a fascinating process in terms of the refinement and engagement that there has been through the constructive approach that I have always tried to take. Hearing "knowingly" being mentioned and the inclusion of the Woodland Trust are kinks that have come through the drafting process, which I never thought would have been the case, but, when dealing with drafters who are based in London, things can slip in. A number of amendments have been suggested today, and maybe those can be taken forward by the Committee or by independent members. That is something that we obviously want to explore.

I just have a couple of questions on your opening statements and the comments that have been made so far. Paul, you mentioned the NIPSO report, "cause or permit", and the fact that there have been zero prosecutions here. Will the Bill go some way to ensuring that that does not happen in future?

Mr Armstrong: I hope so. How do you measure the success of the Bill? One way to measure the success of the Bill is to have greater deterrent for TPO breaches. If you have zero enforcement, as the NIPSO report highlighted, as did my follow-up research —. We can now say that in six years, not three, we have had zero prosecutions of tree preservation orders between 2019 and the end of 2025. That is partly down to the fact that a lack of "cause or permit" makes it harder for council officials to investigate TPO breaches. The person who has carried out the works has to be found. There is also a mismatch. Currently, the regulations around TPOs do say "cause or permit", but the primary legislation does not, so there is a mismatch and a potential loophole. Council officials have said that that is enough of a grey area to not waste time and resource going to court, because that is a loophole that lawyers could exploit, so it needs to be closed. I would like to see, in a number of years, greater enforcement actions, as in England, and possibly some prosecutions, because prosecutions will act as a deterrent. We are not after developers; we are after bad actors and people who want to flout the law, so it needs to have a deterrent. The current figures show that the whole system does not really act as a deterrent.

Mr McReynolds: IROPI came up at the previous session. The Bill is being approached in a pragmatic way that does not want to get in the way of necessary works that would benefit the public, health and safety, or whatever it may be. Could that have a role in reassuring the Department that the Bill does not have a blanket approach that stops absolutely everything? Paul mentioned the A5, and I know that that would be a concern for him as someone from the north-west. Is there a place within that to make sure that the Bill operates in a way that does not obstruct major development but protects ancient, long-established woodland?

Mrs Mulholland: Yes. That is a good way forward for it. We are all drivers, we live in houses and we use public transport. It all needs to be looked at. It is just about ensuring that people do not use every little thing as an excuse to say, "We can do it because I need this or that". You will have a better way of saying it than me, Paul.

Mr Armstrong: The principle here is about finding a recognised test that provides a clear and balanced framework. IROPI is recognised under habitat regulations, so that may be suitable. What you really want here is something that filters out genuinely necessary public projects and allows them to proceed while ensuring that commercial convenience alone is not permitted. We keep coming back to the example of Tullynagardy, because it is still fresh in some of our minds and is a recent and good example to give. Permission for five luxury detached homes will not necessarily outweigh the benefit of maintaining an irreplaceable habitat, whereas there might be infrastructure or something that is of genuine public interest. Having a test may be something for Rosemary and the team in the Department to look at, and IROPI may be one of those. There seems to be a nice parallel there. "Wholly exceptional" is in the guidance in England; perhaps that could be included in primary legislation. It might be the first time that it is done, but there is no reason why Northern Ireland cannot be a trailblazer. We could lead by example. I want to say that to the Committee too.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Andrew, you were nodding away and had your hand up. Do you want to come in on that point?

Mr Weatherall: Yes, that is great. Paul's point about Northern Ireland being a trailblazer is really important. We are sometimes having this conversation as if 10% of the area of Northern Ireland were ancient woodland that needs protecting. We had the figures before. The 0·04% of the land area that we can say with a high degree of certainty is ancient woodland is 549 hectares. It is a tiny amount. The percentage across the UK is 2·5%, so it is a lot lower in Northern Ireland. In some ways, therefore, it would be really great if, having the least amount, Northern Ireland were the first one to implement legislative change to protect it. There are lots of opportunities to avoid development near ancient woodland. Of course, you need a "wholly exceptional circumstances", or whatever you decide to call it, get-out for some circumstances, but, when there is so little left, the first principle has to be "do no harm".

Mr Stewart: Thank you.

Mr McReynolds: Andrew, you have reminded me of a moment during the early drafting of the Bill when I wondered what the objective was — what we were trying to do with the inclusion of the protection for ancient woodland and the buffer zone. However, it is about 100 years from now. It is about the Bill being there to protect what is there and do no harm, as you have just said, so that people will look back and realise that, hopefully, there is more ancient, long-established woodland because we increased the protections through the Bill.

Rosemary, you mentioned the 15-metre buffer zone. I think that you broadly welcomed that in your statement. There has been a bit of tension about it. Have you looked at how that has been applied in England, where I think, in some council areas, 15 metres is the minimum? Many go beyond that. I think that, in some councils, it is actually upwards of 100 metres. Have you looked at how that is being deployed?

Mrs Mulholland: It really depends on the woodland and the nature of the development. Putting a path around the edge of an ancient woodland will have a very different effect than building a factory there, for example. It needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Maybe Andrew can explain more about how it is applied in England, but I would say that it very much depends on the type of woodland, what species of trees there are and what other species are living in that woodland, and that it should be taken on a case-by-case basis, rather than just saying that the buffer is 15 metres. It could be even less than that if it was shrubs around the edge or whatever.

Mr McReynolds: Andrew, do you want to come in on that as well?

Mr Weatherall: Yes, thank you. I will just come back to the idea of the 100 years. As I said earlier, 15 metres is thought of as the root protection area. Sometimes it is more than that. Rosemary makes a good point: if the woodland boundary is shrubs, those roots will, perhaps, extend for less distance. There may be expert opinion that could change that.

We cannot add to the ancient woodlands that we have, according to the designation that they have existed since 1600, but the next best thing is natural colonisation: seeds from that ancient woodland seed source setting in the surrounding areas. The Tree Protection Bill is primarily about not damaging what we have. However, if we really want woodland to be better and bigger in the future, although, technically, it will not be called "ancient woodland", natural colonisation and natural processes of seeding into an area will give us that biodiverse habitat into the future. We should be thinking not purely in terms of damage but in terms of opportunity. The Bill does not necessarily go that far but, by having buffers there, you have the opportunity in the future, if there is land use change towards woodland, for example, to create something that really gives it resilience to the future threats that we know are coming from pests, diseases, drought, flooding and wildfire. We need everything to be bigger, better and more joined-up post the Lawton principles. That is what we should be thinking of with buffer zones: not just protection but the opportunity for improvement.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Andrew.

Gregor, I was scribbling down notes when you were —. I have written down here "lots of constructive criticism", because you had lots of interesting suggestions for ways in which we could change things or strengthen the Bill. Resourcing for local councils comes up quite a lot. Have you looked at potential opportunities that could be there for local councils to recoup costs? Have you explored that?

Mr Fulton: Funny: we were just talking over lunch about resources and opportunities that are coming up and help that could be there for councils. At the minute, the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) is talking about arborist apprenticeships. That question came up when we were listening before we came in. CAFRE will run arborist apprenticeships, starting in September 2027, hopefully. Adam Ferguson from CAFRE is leading on that. It is my understanding that it is looking at offering around 12 places per year, which would be a fantastic resource for councils. A lot of the councils sat on the workshop that it ran for that. The Woodland Trust also offers lots of resources on identifying ancient trees and woodland, doing condition assessments, and training on how to actually assess them. There are lots of cheap, easy and useful ways for councils to get the training that they require for making those assessments. I do not know whether that sort of answers the question.

Mr McReynolds: It does. Thank you.

Lastly — I am not sure who this question is aimed at — ecosystem services, as a concept, has come up a number of times in terms of subjectivity. Rosemary Daly said that it could be open to challenge if you were to go beyond amenity, which, in my view, as I said to her, is a vague subject. Andrew, you mentioned that it is an international standard. I know that the Republic of Ireland and GB have been mentioned when it comes to how we can potentially go beyond amenity without going full ecosystem services. Has anyone looked to see whether, in Europe, a standard is applied? Does anyone have any views on that to, hopefully, reassure the Department?

Mr Weatherall: I will come in while the others are thinking. I have not looked at that. I would be happy to have a look and come back to the Committee with further evidence to clarify that, if you wish.

Mr McReynolds: Brilliant. Thank you, Andrew.

Mr Fulton: At the minute, there are tree safety surveys that use ecosystem services. There are a couple of consultants in Northern Ireland that already use those to assess the tree and the impact of taking that tree down compared to, for example, moving a road. That is an extreme example. You know, is it more expensive to move the road or keep the tree in terms of ecosystem services? There are working examples out there.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): No other member has indicated, so I thank you all for coming along today. I really appreciate your time and engagement. Questions will probably continue to come up as this goes on, and I am sure that you will be ready and waiting to reply with any answers that we need. We really appreciate your assistance today in providing some suggested amendments as well. That is really useful. I just place on record our thanks to you today, and we look forward to further engagement. Thanks very much. Andrew, thank you very much. All the best.