Bill Cordingley, Senior Associate Barrister at Browne Jacobson, analyses the evolving legal landscape of climate change and biodiversity loss that increases the pressure on our forested environments
The Forestry Acts, post-war statutes focused on timber security, have been transformed by contemporary case law that gives equal treatment to conservation, giving rise to challenging decisions for landowners, forestry operators and policymakers to make on replanting versus repurposing forestry land.
The Forestry Act 1947, enacted in the aftermath of World War II when the UK faced a critical timber shortage, was initially designed with a singular purpose: to rebuild and secure the nation’s timber reserves for strategic and economic reasons.
Yet what began as legislation interpreted almost exclusively through the lens of timber production has evolved into a framework that balances commercial forestry with conservation, biodiversity protection and sustainable land management.
Post-war origins: Timber as national security
The Forestry Act 1947 was born of necessity. The devastation of two world wars had depleted Britain’s timber reserves, and the strategic vulnerability exposed by wartime timber shortages led Parliament to prioritise the rebuilding of domestic forestry capacity.
The judiciary approached the legislation purposively, viewing its primary aim as fostering afforestation and timber production to meet national needs.
This was the era of single-minded afforestation, when the Forestry Commission pursued ambitious planting programmes, often with fast-growing conifers, and the courts supported this mission by interpreting the Act’s purposes narrowly and in favour of timber production.
The turning point: Environmental awakening
By the 1970s, however, attitudes toward the countryside had undergone a profound shift. The environmental movement gained momentum, and public concern grew over intensive conifer planting, particularly in ecologically sensitive upland areas.
This evolution culminated in a watershed moment in 1985 when Parliament enacted the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985. This required the commissioners to “endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance” between the development of forestry, and “the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest”.
The 1985 amendment was not merely a technical adjustment but a codification of a broader purpose for forestry law – a recognition that the Act must serve multiple objectives, with conservation now standing alongside timber production as a core aim.
Modern case law: Conservation as an equal purpose
Recent Court of Appeal decisions have firmly established conservation as a central principle in forestry legislation.
In R (Arnold White Estates Ltd) versus Forestry Commission (2022), a developer argued that replanting conditions should be set aside because land was destined for development under planning permission.
The Court of Appeal rejected this argument unequivocally, holding that planning consent does not override the Forestry Act’s licensing conditions or enforcement notices. The decision demonstrates the court’s view that maintenance of forest cover is a core purpose of the Act, not merely as an administrative requirement that can be set aside when inconvenient.
In R (Wickford Developments Ltd) versus Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2025), the Court of Appeal upheld the Forestry Commission’s robust use of its enforcement powers to require replanting following unlawful felling, even after criminal prosecution was dropped. The judgment affirmed that sustainable forestry management – ensuring continuity of woodlands – is a core aim of the Act, on equal footing with any traditional timber objective.
Practical implications for land management
Under the contemporary interpretation, the Act’s purposes now encompass both timber production and conservation, and decision-makers must achieve a reasonable balance between these objectives.
This means that replanting decisions can’t be made solely by reference to timber production potential, but must also account for conservation values, biodiversity impacts, landscape considerations, climate change mitigation, and other environmental factors.
Repurposing former forestry land may be justified when alternative land uses provide greater conservation benefits than timber replanting.
For example, if commercial forestry was established on peatland – now recognised as ecologically inappropriate and damaging – restoration of the peatland to its natural condition might better serve the Act’s conservation purposes than replanting with trees.
Looking forward
The integration of climate change considerations into forestry decision-making is likely to become more explicit and more demanding.
As the UK pursues its net-zero commitments and the science of carbon sequestration and ecosystem-based climate adaptation advances, courts may be called upon to interpret the Act’s conservation duties in light of climate imperatives.
In effect, the “purpose” of the Forestry Act has expanded: it began as a post-war timber statute and has matured into a framework for sustainable forestry stewardship that balances productive use with environmental protection.
The law no longer presumes that timber production should automatically prevail. Instead, it requires a reasoned balancing of competing objectives, with conservation now standing as an equal purpose alongside timber supply.
For public sector decision-makers, this evolution provides both clarity and flexibility: woodland cover must be maintained, but the nature of that cover should reflect a careful assessment of ecological value, climate considerations and the multiple purposes that modern forestry regulation serves.
