Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Objectors attack plan to recreate wood as 'absurd'

David Nicholson-Lord
Tuesday 19 January 1993 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A PLAN to create a replica ancient woodland to replace one that will be destroyed by a six-lane trunk road was described as a 'Disneyland absurdity' in the High Court yesterday.

Conservationists are challenging proposals that would cut in two Oxleas Wood in south-east London. The woodland lost would then be 'recreated' on nearby fields.

Nigel Pleming QC, for the objectors, said ancient woodland was a national treasure that could not be recreated. The result would be 'some kind of pale pastiche - a Disneyland woodland', he told the court.

Nine people who live near Oxleas are appealing against the compulsory purchase procedures in a hearing that could have wide repercussions for the road-building programme. It is thought to be the first test of the obligation to provide new land of 'equal advantage' where public open space is lost through a compulsory purchase; lawyers say the phrase has not previously been defined.

The 'Oxleas nine' are personally liable for the costs of the case, which could be up to pounds 100,000 if it goes to appeal. Their campaign is backed by conservation groups and environmentalists including Professor David Bellamy and Jonathon Porritt.

Outside the High Court yesterday, Mr Porritt described the dispute over Oxleas as 'absolutely critical' for conservation in the United Kingdom. 'It is a national issue which epitomises the Government's vandalism and folly,' he said. Dr Bellamy said this was the first generation which, 'knowingly and with malice aforethought', was destroying its heritage.

Friends of the Earth said that of the 161 sites of special scientific interest threatened by roads, at least five could be affected by the outcome. These are at Chobham, Hindhead and Thursley in Surrey, Snelsmore in Berkshire and Blows Down in Bedfordshire. The Oxleas case could set up a 'legal road-block' in the path of the Department of Transport, it said.

Compulsory purchase of open space must be subject to special parliamentary procedure unless 'equally advantageous' land replaces it. The objectors are challenging the Government's failure to invoke that procedure.

Mr Pleming said the Government's case rested on the plan to take top soil from Oxleas to nearby Woodlands Farm and plant trees there. During the 10 to 14 years that the trees were growing, the public would be excluded from nine-tenths of the new site.

'Fourteen years is almost a generation. It is certainly a generation of children and they would be excluded from 90 per cent of the exchange land,' he said.

Experts were virtually unanimous that ancient woodland, typically 8,000 years old, could not be recreated, he said. Oxleas, which is the largest ancient woodland near London, was saved in the 1920s after a public subscription against urbanisation. 'The exchange of a field, with promises, for an existing forest is simply absurd,' Mr Pleming said.

The European Commission has yet to decide whether the Government has breached environmental assessment procedures in giving permission for the scheme. The case continues.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in