Housing Targets Put England's Ancient Woodlands Under Growing Pressure, Campaigners Warn

Helen Cherry has lived beside Chaddesden Wood in Derby for 40 years, and she still walks her dog there regularly. The former cafe owner says the wood is at least 400 years old, with mature hazel and oak. Some days, she says, she has stopped and looked across the field beside it, out toward the Derbyshire Dales, and been brought to tears. That field is where about 150 houses have been proposed.

Her worry is one now being voiced by campaigners across England. Ancient woodland, defined as land continuously wooded since at least the year 1600, is covered by planning policy that allows building on or near it only in "wholly exceptional circumstances". The National Planning Policy Framework, the guidance local councils use when deciding applications, gives major infrastructure such as HS2 as an example. Campaigners argue that the Labour government's pledge to build 1.5 million homes by the end of 2029, together with the newly created "grey belt", is testing those protections. The grey belt covers poorer quality open land that can be built on.

The BBC has found dozens of individual sites where planned developments sit immediately beside ancient woods. Among them are approved plans for 450 homes within yards of Hook Wood in Gillingham, Kent, which residents fear will devastate local wildlife.

Lucy Graebe-Watson, chairwoman of Ancient Woodland UK, said existing protections are already struggling in some cases, and that local groups have raised more concerns and alerts since the recent planning reforms. She described the woods as irreplaceable. In her view, the grey belt makes it more likely that land directly next to ancient woodland, previously shielded by green belt rules, could be developed.

In Derby, more than 1,500 people, Cherry among them, have objected to the plans beside Chaddesden Wood Nature Reserve. She says building up to the woodland's edge would leave it "closed on all sides" and make a "mockery" of its protected status. Derby City Council refused the plans in 2025, but surveyors were seen on the site over the summer, and neighbours fear developer JGP Properties Limited will return with amended proposals. The company told the Local Democracy Reporting Service its assessments showed "no loss or deterioration of the ancient woodland and veteran trees".

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says protections for irreplaceable habitats improved under the recent NPPF changes, but Carl Bunnage, its head of nature policy, calls them still inadequate. He describes the "wholly exceptional circumstances" wording as a loophole for developers, particularly where housing is scarce, and says housing and economic growth policies often carry more weight than nature conservation. He asks why habitats should not get the same strongest protection given to historic buildings.

In Rossington, near Doncaster in South Yorkshire, a 130-home scheme on land around Gelster Wood has drawn the backing of more than 2,000 people challenging it. Gary Cantrill, a local beekeeper with the Preserve Littleworth Lane Group, calls the site 350-year-old historic farmland and says the village is treated as an easy target. He also fears flooding, because the fields now absorb vast amounts of rainwater.

Ecological consultant Matt Shardlow, who works with the campaign, says woods can be harmed even if no trees are felled. Development can damage roots that extend beyond the wood's boundary, and drainage for new housing can dry out some tree species and pollute their water. Noise and light can drive sensitive species out, and pet cats can affect ground-nesting birds, bats and other animals. Albemarle Homes says the woodland itself was not part of the original site and any future plans must comply with environmental rules.

The housing ministry says ancient woodland has "very clear and strong protections". A spokesman said the national rules explicitly state that developments causing its loss or deterioration should be refused, with very limited exceptions for some nationally significant infrastructure projects, where compensation would be required. A revised NPPF published in August, the department says, contains clearer policies on irreplaceable habitats. Whether that holds as the 2029 target nears will be tested site by site, starting with the objections in Derby and Rossington.