Environment Bill — Report (4th Day) — Amendment 100 — 15 Sep 2021 at 17:00

Moved by Baroness Young of Old Scone

100: After Clause 110, insert the following new Clause-“Duty to implement an enhanced protection standard for ancient woodland in England(1) The Government must implement an enhanced protection standard for ancient woodland, hereafter referred to as the “ancient woodland standard” in England as set out in subsections (2), (3) and (4) and this must have immediate effect.(2) The ancient woodland standard must set out the steps necessary to prevent further loss of ancient woodland in England.(3) The ancient woodland standard commits the Government to adopting a standard of protection which must be a requirement for all companies, persons or organisations involved in developments affecting ancient woodlands in England.(4) This standard must be that- (a) any development that causes direct loss to ancient woodland or ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees must be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and, in addition, a suitable compensation strategy must be in place prior to development commencing,(b) any development adjacent to ancient woodland must incorporate a minimum 50-metre buffer to provide protection, reduce indirect damage and provide space for natural regeneration,(c) any ancient or veteran trees must be retained within a development site, including a root protection area and appropriate buffer zone.(5) This buffer zone must be whichever is greater of-(a) an area which is a radius of 15 times the diameter of the tree with no cap, or(b) 5 metres beyond the crown.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is intended to address the more than 800 ancient woodlands in England that are currently threatened by development. As a large number of these threats result from indirect effects of development next to ancient woodland, these changes will improve the weight afforded to protecting these irreplaceable habitats in planning policy.

Ayes 193, Noes 189.

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Content)Minority (Not-Content)Turnout
Bishop1 03.4%
Con1 14549.2%
Crossbench22 714.4%
DUP0 240.0%
Green2 0100.0%
Judge0 213.3%
Lab88 039.1%
LDem64 160.2%
Non-affiliated6 121.9%
UUP0 150.0%
Total:184 15937.4%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

Lords for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible lord who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Party | Vote

NamePartyVote
Lord Marlesford Conaye
Lord Carey of CliftonCrossbenchno
Lord Carrington Crossbenchno
Lord Craig of RadleyCrossbench (front bench)no
The Earl of ErrollCrossbenchno
Lord Greenway Crossbenchno
Lord Powell of BayswaterCrossbench (front bench)no
Lord Ravensdale Crossbenchno
Baroness Nicholson of WinterbourneLDemno
Lord Kalms Non-affiliatedno

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive