This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25599249

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Owen Paterson backs ancient woodland 'offsetting' Destruction of ancient woodland 'highly unlikely'
(about 9 hours later)
Developers could be allowed to destroy ancient woodland if they agreed to plant many more trees elsewhere, the environment secretary has suggested. It is "highly unlikely" ancient woodland would be destroyed under new plans to speed up the planning process, the government has insisted.
Owen Paterson told the Times "biodiversity offsetting" could give "a better environment over the long term". Environment Secretary Owen Paterson had suggested in the Times lost trees could be replaced by planting more elsewhere.
Critics have called such plans a licence "to trash nature". He was discussing government proposals to mitigate environmental damage caused by development through "offsetting".
The Department for the Environment stressed it was "extremely unlikely" planning permission would be granted on land covered by ancient woodland. A spokesman for his department said the idea that this would apply to ancient woodland was "very hypothetical".
And if it was, it would be only for major infrastructure projects, it added. So-called "biodiversity offsetting" is intended to ensure "no net loss" of biodiversity to an area.
BBC News political correspondent Chris Mason said Mr Paterson had long made it clear that his priority as environment secretary was growing the economy as well as improving the natural environment. Campaigners from the Woodland Trust said offsetting should only ever be a last resort, and Friends of the Earth has warned against putting nature "up for sale".
But a spokesman for the Department for the Environment stressed a consultation on the policy had only just closed and that any proposals to build on land covered by such woodland would still have to go through a "vigorous planning process".
He added: "The policy already exists in America and Australia. We've been running some pilot schemes over the last year or so and we think the idea of offsetting could work."
'Increase in trees'
BBC News political correspondent Chris Mason said the environment secretary had long made it clear that his priority was growing the economy as well as improving the natural environment.
Mr Paterson has previously expressed frustration with the planning system, which he has claimed can approach environmental concerns in an "expensive and inefficient" manner.Mr Paterson has previously expressed frustration with the planning system, which he has claimed can approach environmental concerns in an "expensive and inefficient" manner.
He sees offsetting as a measurable way to ensure environmental improvements are made elsewhere when development that cannot be avoided causes damage, our correspondent added.He sees offsetting as a measurable way to ensure environmental improvements are made elsewhere when development that cannot be avoided causes damage, our correspondent added.
'Huge offset' In his interview with the Times, the environment secretary cited the construction of the M6 toll road around Birmingham, saying 10,000 mature trees had been lost, but a million young trees planted.
In his interview with the Times, the environment secretary acknowledged that the scale of ancient woodlands would not be able to be recreated immediately. "Now people will say that's no good for our generation - but, over the long term, that is an enormous increase in the number of trees," he added.
But he told the newspaper it could be mitigated by "a huge offset" of additional trees elsewhere.
He cited the construction of the M6 toll road around Birmingham, saying 10,000 mature trees had been lost but a million young trees planted.
"Now people will say that's no good for our generation but, over the long term, that is an enormous increase in the number of trees."
He said it was "a practical example of a high amount of planting following a tragic loss of some wonderful trees".He said it was "a practical example of a high amount of planting following a tragic loss of some wonderful trees".
And he added that it would be appropriate for a replacement site to be "about an hour away by car".And he added that it would be appropriate for a replacement site to be "about an hour away by car".
'Bigger sites''Bigger sites'
Six areas of England are taking part in a two-year pilot of biodiversity offsetting, which began in April 2012.Six areas of England are taking part in a two-year pilot of biodiversity offsetting, which began in April 2012.
The scheme aims to ensure that when a development causes unavoidable damage to biodiversity, "new, bigger or better nature sites will be created".The scheme aims to ensure that when a development causes unavoidable damage to biodiversity, "new, bigger or better nature sites will be created".
A consultation on how the scheme could be rolled out across England closed in November, A consultation on how the scheme could be rolled out across England closed in November.
A week later, the Environmental Audit Committee of MPs said plans outlined by the government must be strengthened if they were to "properly protect Britain's wildlife". The consultation acknowledges ancient woodland would be "impossible to recreate on a meaningful timetable".
The Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons said recently the plans outlined by the government must be strengthened if they were to "properly protect Britain's wildlife".
The MPs said an assessment proposed by the government appeared to be "little more than a 20-minute box-ticking exercise that is simply not adequate to assess a site's year-round biodiversity".The MPs said an assessment proposed by the government appeared to be "little more than a 20-minute box-ticking exercise that is simply not adequate to assess a site's year-round biodiversity".
The Woodland Trust has campaigned against the inclusion of ancient woodlands in any offsetting scheme and it rejects the suggestion that the future of these habitats should rest on the proposed economic benefit of a given development.The Woodland Trust has campaigned against the inclusion of ancient woodlands in any offsetting scheme and it rejects the suggestion that the future of these habitats should rest on the proposed economic benefit of a given development.
It has said offsetting should "only ever be a last resort when all other avenues have been explored to avoid loss or damage".It has said offsetting should "only ever be a last resort when all other avenues have been explored to avoid loss or damage".
Friends of the Earth has said that instead of putting nature "up for sale", the government should strengthen wildlife protection through the planning system.