West of England Woodland Opportunity Study

Data source:

Environment Agency

Assumption:

Land classified as being within an acid vulnerable catchment

The Forestry Commission advises that: “Forestry is known to influence the degree of acidification, principally due to the ability of forest canopies to capture more acid sulphur and nitrogen pollutants from the atmosphere than other types of vegetation. As a result, there is a need to manage forestry within vulnerable areas to ensure that it does not lead to increased acidification or delay the recovery of waters to Good Ecological Status.”

However, there are no acid vulnerable catchments located within the study area.

Data source:

Natural England

Assumption:

CRoW Act 2000 S4 Conclusive Registered Common Land

Although common land is often open, national policy regarding common land focuses on maintaining its accessibility to the public but does not require this land to be visually open and free from woodland. The management plans for some publicly owned commons may include by-laws regarding the restriction of woodland planting, however this is dependent on individual locations.

Therefore, provided access is maintained, woodland planting on common land is possible and as such common land is not considered a constraint to woodland planting. Further site-based assessment would be required to determine how suitable individual common lands are for woodland planting opportunities.

Data source:

Rural Payments Agency Crop Map of England (CROME)

Assumption:

Productive agricultural land

Land was identified as being productive that is in use for leguminous, cereal and energy crops or fallow land. It may be more suitable to retain this land as productive agricultural land rather than planting it with woodland, however this would require further site specific study. Therefore, this productive land was not treated as a constraint but was shown for information in the maps produced considering woodlands above 5ha.

Small sized woodlands (<5ha) have the potential to be integrated alongside crops in the corners of fields and in conjunction with hedgerows, including as part of agro-forestry schemes. Therefore, their impact on agricultural land loss would be minimal and their planting on land currently in productive use may not be inappropriate.

Data source:

Defra

Assumption:

Land covered by higher level environmental stewardship schemes and higher tier countryside stewardship management options

Although land covered by higher level Environmental stewardship schemes and Countryside Stewardship Schemes are already committed to some form of land management, these schemes are time-bound, with many coming to an end in the next few years. Although some schemes may be replaced by new agreements as a result of forthcoming changes to agricultural subsidies, identifying these areas for potential future woodland planting is considered to be appropriate.

Data source:

Centre for Ecology & Hydrology

Assumption:

Areas of higher topsoil carbon density

If disturbed, non-peaty soils containing carbon can release this carbon and as such woodland planting on them would be inappropriate.

However, the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology topsoil carbon data is of low resolution, based on data from 2,614 sample locations across Great Britain extrapolated using statistical analysis to form 1km grid squares of topsoil carbon values. This is too large a scale for this study and as such this data was not used.

Instead, this was shown for information in the maps produced.

It is noted that the soil data used by RSPB to define organo-mineral soils of higher risk for woodland planting is not yet publicly available.

Data source:

Historic England

Assumption:

Land covered by listed buildings.

Listed buildings are protected cultural heritage designations, however only point data is available for these features, and therefore their building footprints would need to be estimated using 5m buffer. Due to the inaccuracy of the resulting mapping, this data was not used. Instead, Ordnance Survey (OS) data (see above) was used to map all buildings as constraints.

It is noted that polygon data for locally listed buildings was available for South Gloucestershire only. In order to ensure the studies for South Gloucestershire and North Somerset were consistent, these were not treated as a constraint to woodland planting.

Data source:

Ordnance Survey Terrain 50

Assumption:

Steeper land

Although it may be more difficult to plant some species of woodland on steeper slopes, it may still be feasible dependent on tree species and site-specific factors such as soil. As such, slope is not considered a constraint to woodland planting, but further consideration of slope would be required for later site-specific assessment to inform woodland planting potential.

Data source:

Forestry Commission

Assumption:

Wader Zonal Map for Golden Plover and Curlew breeding wading bird species in either strata 4 or 5

The Forestry Commission, Natural England, and Defra state that within strata 4 or 5, “Modelling suggests these areas can provide important habitat for wading birds. However, modelling is low resolution so there may be some opportunities for woodland in appropriate locations with FC and NE advice.”
However, there are no Golden Plover and Curlew breeding wading bird species in either strata 4 or 5 within the study area.

Data source:

West of England Nature Partnership

Assumption:

Land covered by the West of England Nature Recovery Network woodland connectivity opportunities, woodland network model and existing woodland

The Nature Recovery Network identifies a joined-up network of habitats where the West of England Nature Partnership states ‘nature and people can thrive’. The network identifies existing woodland within the West of England (including B&NES), as well as opportunities to plant additional woodland to enhance network connectivity.

As this network forms an ‘adaptive spatial plan’, these locations have not necessarily yet been committed for woodland planting. As such, considering these areas for potential future woodland planting was appropriate. Data has been presented on separate maps to aid in the identification of synergies between the two studies.