'Irreplacable' ancient woodland in Cumbria under threat over housing fears
Campaigners say a push to build more houses could destroy the ecosystem
Last updated 2nd Nov 2026
Concerns have been raised by campaigners who fear a drive to build more houses could put some of England’s oldest and ‘irreplaceable’ habitats under increasing pressure.
Figures show that there are 53,402,946 square metres of ancient woodland in the Cumberland Council area which represents 1.80 per cent of the total local authority area.
And in Westmorland and Furness there area there are 109,562,310 square metres of ancient woodland, which represents 2.90 per cent – across England as a whole there is 3,649,648,623 square metres, more than 1,000 square miles, or 2.60 per cent of the total area.
Ancient woodland is defined as land continuously wooded since at least 1600 and it is considered one of the country’s most valuable habitats for wildlife. And, because ancient woodland ecosystems develop over centuries, environmental organisations describe them as effectively ‘irreplaceable’.
But it is feared that Labour’s pledge to build 1.5million new homes by the end of 2029 and the recent creation of the ‘grey belt’ – areas of poorer quality open spaces that can be built on – are seeing more developments taking place on or close to the woodlands.
The ancient sites are supposed to receive some of the strongest environmental protections in the planning system. But a BBC Shared Data Unit investigation has found housing developments continue to be proposed and approved immediately beside dozens of the country’s oldest forests, prompting concerns that planning policy is failing.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland, should be refused unless there are “wholly exceptional reasons”. However, conservation organisations say the phrase has become one of the most contentious aspects of woodland protection.
Lucy Graebe-Watson, the chairwoman of Ancient Woodland UK, said such sites were ‘irreplaceable’. She added: “The grey belt policy change is recent, so specific examples are still emerging. However, we are already seeing cases where existing protections are struggling.”
Ms Graebe-Watson said the 2026 NPPF retains ancient woodland under the irreplaceable habitats clause and she added: “Development should only be permitted in wholly exceptional circumstances, and although mitigation is referenced in policy, ancient woodland is irreplaceable so loss cannot genuinely be mitigated.
“Despite this, applications resulting in loss or deterioration have historically been approved, including nationally significant cases such as HS2 and local examples involving boundary encroachment and insufficient buffers.
“The new grey belt policy is likely to increase development pressure on land near ancient woodland, potentially reducing buffer zones, increasing fragmentation and leading to more claims of wholly exceptional circumstances. Because protection is policy‑based rather than statutory, any increase in pressure raises risk.”
And Carl Bunnage, head of nature policy at the RSPB, said: “While we welcome the improvements that were made to the definition of irreplaceable habitats in the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) over the summer, the RSPB considers that protections for irreplaceable habitats need to be strengthened within the planning system.”
He said that, at present, there was no definitive list of irreplaceable habitats and he added: “We consider that all such habitats should be included within a list of definitive irreplaceable habitats, and that this should be given the strongest protections within the planning system.
“If we can give the strongest protections to built heritage features such as historic buildings, then why shouldn’t we also be giving the strongest protections to those habitats, often providing homes for vulnerable and priority species, which we will never have the opportunity to replace once lost?”
However, a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) spokesman said: “Ancient woodlands have very clear and strong protections, and we have explicitly said development proposals that result in the loss or deterioration of these precious habitats should be refused.
“There are very limited exceptions to this, such as new nationally significant infrastructure projects, and in these instances appropriate measures would have to be taken to compensate for the impact on habitats.”