Fight Planning Permission for Forestry

fergus1001

cycling is fun wrote:

ok a bog beside my own was planted within the last ten years my own forest was planted 27 years ago but my neighbour planted within the last 10 years I am in South Mayo by the way so I hope this answers your question and no reference to grass fields with black soil under it

highly doubt they are actual "bogs" planted in the last 20 years the forest service takes a dim view of the practice

Farmer

Op
For starters
Try and find the application listed under the relevant month on https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/forestservice/publicconsultation/environmentalimpactassessmenteia-publicconsultationforafforestationforestroadconstructionandfellinglicenses2018/

Copy the details for the application and email the department for further details at
mailto:forestryappenq@agriculture.gov.ie
They will send you back the maps, tree types, percentages etc.

Take note of the application publish date, you have 30 days from that to lodge an objections or observation

Do that for starters anyway

cycling is fun

Odelay wrote: »

But can you name one that has been planted in the last 20 years? Where has this been done?

I have stated in my post which you have quoted that bog beside my house was planted in the last 10 years there seems to be an issue with what a bog actually is to my mine a bog is somewhere you can cut turf so this bog as I have said was planted within the last ten years and the location is south mayo

cycling is fun

fergus1001 wrote: »

highly doubt they are actual "bogs" planted in the last 20 years the forest service takes a dim view of the practice

so what to you is an actual bog? if you were more specific in your original post is might have saved a bit of hassle the forestry company have to apply for the grant so I assume they have to maps and the like to the forestry service i assume that if the forestry company assumed there would be any issue they would not have bothered even trying to apply for the grant

fepper

Raised bogs that would have all the turf cut out nearly to the mud back in in day wouldn't be considered a bog anymore and could be planted with forestry I'd say with approval from forest service

fergus1001

fepper wrote: »

Raised bogs that would have all the turf cut out nearly to the mud back in in day wouldn't be considered a bog anymore and could be planted with forestry I'd say with approval from forest service

if they are fenced and actively farmed and can pass the R and N vegetation scoring system

lumendecens

Many thanks to everyone who has provided helpful input. Apologies for not calling each out by name.

One important aspect of our area is that we have several protected and endangered species in our area (some I didn't know about until I started my research). And, perhaps more importantly, learned that I most likely have an actively growing raised bog on my property adjacent to the area under application. This will get further investigation and possibly protection.

We are sending in our objection on Tuesday. I'll post on here what happens.

Happy to share the research with anyone else battling afforestation.

Again, many thanks.

Michael

Dinzee Conlee

lumendecens wrote: »

Many thanks to everyone who has provided helpful input. Apologies for not calling each out by name.

One important aspect of our area is that we have several protected and endangered species in our area (some I didn't know about until I started my research). And, perhaps more importantly, learned that I most likely have an actively growing raised bog on my property adjacent to the area under application. This will get further investigation and possibly protection.

We are sending in our objection on Tuesday. I'll post on here what happens.

Happy to share the research with anyone else battling afforestation.

Again, many thanks.

Michael

Are you objecting to the land being planted?
Or being planted specifically with pine trees?
Would you be happy enough with native trees being planted?

lumendecens

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Are you objecting to the land being planted?
Or being planted specifically with pine trees?
Would you be happy enough with native trees being planted?

We're objecting for a range of reasons, but the planting of native trees would be much preferred depending on how water quality and existing biodiversity were addressed.

Markcheese

I don't know of its still the case, but the forestry company are / were paid by area, if a section of the site is of particular environmental interest, and a habitat for protected species, they don't plant it, but still get paid..
(a friend was getting land planted, and her neighbour was jumping up and down about a potential rate orchid or something, really irate, the rep for the forestry company thanked her for the info and just didn't plant there...)

Dinzee Conlee

lumendecens wrote: »

We're objecting for a range of reasons, but the planting of native trees would be much preferred depending on how water quality and existing biodiversity were addressed.

It’s easy for me to comment when it’s not impacting me...

I am getting the feeling you don’t want forestry, and are looking for any reason to stop it...
And I don’t really like the idea that someone can object to someone planting purely cos they might not like the view...

It’s not your land, the owner should be allowed plant it, if they wish and it meets the necessary conditions...

I’ll be honest, there is a greater part of me rooting for the other lad now, and hoping the forestry goes ahead...

fergus1001

lumendecens wrote:

We're objecting for a range of reasons, but the planting of native trees would be much preferred depending on how water quality and existing biodiversity were addressed.

that's like me telling you not to farm suckler cows anymore and your only allowed donkeys

shavins

fergus1001 wrote: »

that's like me telling you not to farm suckler cows anymore and your only allowed donkeys

It's not really,, like the cows or donkeys would be naturally suited to this area of the world, they won't be growing taller for the next 40 years blocking out views,light, encouraging pine marten and wild deer into the area. They won't wreck the land for all time and then wreck yours especially if you're downhill of them. They won't close up another patch of the country to not be touched by any economic or human activity of any major benefit for the vast majority of the 40 years either.
So no, off the top of any right minded individuals head it is not like how you describe it. Just my thoughts

John_Rambo

shavins wrote: »

It's not really,, like the cows or donkeys would be naturally suited to this area of the world, they won't be growing taller for the next 40 years blocking out views,light, encouraging pine marten and wild deer into the area. They won't wreck the land for all time and then wreck yours especially if you're downhill of them. They won't close up another patch of the country to not be touched by any economic or human activity of any major benefit for the vast majority of the 40 years either.
So no, off the top of any right minded individuals head it is not like how you describe it. Just my thoughts

Donkey's aren't suited to Ireland, they need specific care in this island because of their unsuitability unlike the pint martin that is an indigenous and protected species. Unfortunately when people live in rural, farming areas they have to put up with farming practices like... farming.

Forestry is a crop. Farming is a business and farmers have to be dynamic and move with demand like any other business. Hopefully you'll get indigenous & broad leaf planting close to your house, but I doubt you'll get very far complaining about farming in a rural area, particularly if the planned crop is 150 metres from your house.

Birdnuts

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

It’s easy for me to comment when it’s not impacting me...

I am getting the feeling you don’t want forestry, and are looking for any reason to stop it...
And I don’t really like the idea that someone can object to someone planting purely cos they might not like the view...

It’s not your land, the owner should be allowed plant it, if they wish and it meets the necessary conditions...

I’ll be honest, there is a greater part of me rooting for the other lad now, and hoping the forestry goes ahead...

Think your being a bit unfair - he has outlined his reservations in terms of the potential block planting of conifers and many people would share those concerns. He has stated that a mixed woodland would be more acceptable which is a reasonable position IMO.

ganmo

Birdnuts wrote: »

Think your being a bit unfair - he has outlined his reservations in terms of the potential block planting of conifers and many people would share those concerns. He has stated that a mixed woodland would be more acceptable which is a reasonable position IMO.

if applying for planting permission do you have to say what you're going to plant?

lumendecens

ganmo wrote: »

if applying for planting permission do you have to say what you're going to plant?

Yes, ganmo, you have to indicate species. 85% sitka spruce in this case. The 15% is either setbacks or deciduous as required around the boundaries.

Two excerpts related to the planting of sitka spruce from our 28-page submission:

As noted by Smith et al, “…in forests comprised of densely shading conifers, such as Sitka spruce, current management practices will lead to a closed canopy forest at mid-rotation prior to the commencement of thinning. The open habitat assemblages of fauna and flora will then be virtually annihilated.”

Smith, G. F., T. Gittings, M. Wilson, A. Oxbrough, S. Iremonger, S. O'Donoghue, A. M. McKee et al. "Biodiversity Assessment of Afforestation Sites (Project 3.1. 1)." (2006).

With regard Red Squirrels, just one of the species identified on the land in question:

For example, with regards the Red Squirrel, a study conducted in the UK noted that “…Sitka spruce was avoided [by Red Squirrels] throughout the year.” In most cases, the use of Sitka Spruce by the Red Squirrel “was attributed to avoidance of high grey squirrel densities.” In other words, Red Squirrels used Sitka Spruce only when they had no other option to avoid the Greys.

The study further notes that the food available within the types of forestry being proposed for this land land does not provide sufficient calories to support a Red Squirrel population. “The small seed size make the sitka spruce seeds an uneconomical source of food when other species are available.”

https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcpg9.pdf/$FILE/fcpg9.pdf

Dinzee Conlee

lumendecens wrote: »

We're objecting for a range of reasons, but the planting of native trees would be much preferred depending on how water quality and existing biodiversity were addressed.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Think your being a bit unfair - he has outlined his reservations in terms of the potential block planting of conifers and many people would share those concerns. He has stated that a mixed woodland would be more acceptable which is a reasonable position IMO.

I think you called it when you said "more acceptable" Birdnuts... Not necessarily acceptable, just "more acceptable"

The OP has said "native are preferred" but then added other considerations, which I didn't get from the original post.

That's why I specifically asked asked "Would you be happy enough with native trees being planted?"

EDIT: I am currently debating putting in a small bit of forestry. Now, it would be native trees, and it would only be small, so I wouldn't need planning. But lets say I needed to get planning, and if the situation were reversed - lets say I had a neighbour who really liked conifers, and only wanted to see spruce trees. Would it be right that they could object to the planning, asking that I replace the tree type with pine?

fergus1001

Dinzee Conlee wrote:

EDIT: I am currently debating putting in a small bit of forestry. Now, it would be native trees, and it would only be small, so I wouldn't need planning. But lets say I needed to get planning, and if the situation were reversed - lets say I had a neighbour who really liked conifers, and only wanted to see spruce trees. Would it be right that they could object to the planning, asking that I replace the tree type with pine?

no they have to have a real and substantive reason to object, people can object but Bull McCabe arguments don't have any traction "how dare they plant de field"

lumendecens

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I think you called it when you said "more acceptable" Birdnuts... Not necessarily acceptable, just "more acceptable"

The OP has said "native are preferred" but then added other considerations, which I didn't get from the original post.

That's why I specifically asked asked "Would you be happy enough with native trees being planted?"

EDIT: I am currently debating putting in a small bit of forestry. Now, it would be native trees, and it would only be small, so I wouldn't need planning. But lets say I needed to get planning, and if the situation were reversed - lets say I had a neighbour who really liked conifers, and only wanted to see spruce trees. Would it be right that they could object to the planning, asking that I replace the tree type with pine?

I spent the last two weeks deeply researching this issue, so yeah, my opinions definitely changed in the course of my research.

It is a deeply complicated issue. One small example regarding the red squirrel. Mixed broadleaf might be a significant improvement in increasing their population. However, broadleaf forests actually attract grey squirrels who *will* outcompete (drive out) the reds. But areas of open ground, or even plantations of sitka spruce, around broad leafed forestry can act as barriers which the greys will not cross. This creates islands of broad leafed forestry for the reds. Isolated from the greys, the reds will thrive. Lots of field research supports this and this approach is being actively pursued with success throughout the UK.

A big question then just regarding the red squirrel is the larger landscape. Is this piece of land better suited as an island of broadleaf or as an open landscape or as sitka spruce serving as a barrier to the grey?

And that is only one element to be considered.

If broadleaf turned out to be the right answer, forestry activities to plant broadleaf (drainage, spraying weedkiller, fertilising) would damage the active raised bog. Active raised bogs are rare. They are significant carbon stores. So how do we balance the protection of the red squirrels against protection of the raised bog?

There are many more elements to planting forestry than just red squirrels and raised bogs. Each element interacts in various ways with every other element. We are asking that these elements, and the larger landscape, including the social landscape, be considered.

And yes, all this does have to be balanced by the needs of the landowner. Sitka spruce will give him a considerably higher income and sales price for the land than any other land use. Neither his current land use nor broadleaf can compare financially. This has a lot to do with EU policy and the grants and other payments he will receive for Sitka spruce.

Maybe keeping some in broadleaf, some as is, some in sitka, would strike the right balance. We don't know, but we'd like better consideration of the complex interactions. If we do not voice our objections, it will be stands of sitka spruce as indicated on the application.