{"id":1594763,"date":"2024-04-07T08:46:57","date_gmt":"2024-04-07T08:46:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thecanary.co\/?p=1676810"},"modified":"2024-04-07T08:46:57","modified_gmt":"2024-04-07T08:46:57","slug":"revealed-the-canary-exposes-the-wealthy-tory-linked-landowner-involved-in-plans-to-destroy-ripon-cathedrals-own-sycamore-gap","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2024\/04\/07\/revealed-the-canary-exposes-the-wealthy-tory-linked-landowner-involved-in-plans-to-destroy-ripon-cathedrals-own-sycamore-gap\/","title":{"rendered":"REVEALED: the Canary exposes the wealthy, Tory-linked landowner involved in plans to destroy Ripon Cathedral\u2019s own \u2018Sycamore Gap\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

The Church of England is obstructing public scrutiny of an offsetting agreement central to its plans to tear up a beloved and biodiverse veteran beech tree at Ripon Cathedral in the city centre. However, the Canary<\/em> has unearthed the likely identity of the owner of the land tied to the fate of the veteran tree.<\/p>\n

Crucially, the private landowner operates a mixed farming business – including thousands of hectares of commercial forestry.<\/p>\n

In part one<\/a> of this two-part series, the Canary<\/em> explored how Ripon Cathedral has snubbed calls<\/a> to revise its \u00a38m annex application set to destroy an \u201cirreplaceable\u201d veteran tree in Ripon city centre.<\/p>\n

Notably, the article unpacked the Cathedral\u2019s refusal to relocate or downsize its proposed development. Moreover, it detailed North Yorkshire Council\u2019s role in facilitating what campaigners have branded<\/a> a \u201csham\u201d of a public consultation.<\/p>\n

Now the Canary<\/em> will investigate the secrecy surrounding its off-site biodiversity offsetting strategy, and what this opaque agreement could mean for the campaigners’ ongoing battle against the project.<\/p>\n

Bogus biodiversity offsetting<\/h2>\n

Ripon Cathedral has submitted<\/a> a proposal to North Yorkshire Council for permission to build a \u00a38m annex. As the Canary<\/em> previously detailed, the development would house multiple amenities, including a new song school, offices, toilets, and an 80-seat refectory. For part of this plan, it has put forward<\/a> a biodiversity offsetting strategy.<\/p>\n

However, as the Canary\u2019s<\/em> Tracy Keeling has detailed<\/a> before:<\/p>\n

Biodiversity net gain (BNG) is the government\u2019s controversial metric to facilitate continued development in nature-rich areas during the extinction crisis. It enables developers to secure a green light to destroy existing wildlife habitat. They can do so as long as their plans include promises to replace that biodiversity elsewhere and, in many cases, increase it overall.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In particular, this biodiversity offsetting scheme is a central pillar to the Cathedral\u2019s plans to rip up the veteran beech tree. Specifically, national planning policy requires<\/a> developers to provide nature compensation when they cannot avoid destruction of \u201cirreplaceable habitat\u201d – in this instance, the veteran beech.<\/p>\n

Moreover, as the Canary<\/em> pointed out in part one, multiple statutory consultees have set out why they do not consider this unavoidable.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the offsetting site sets aside a separate parcel of land for woodland-pasture habitat. Essentially, the site is supposed to offer a net gain – an increase – in biodiversity.<\/p>\n

Ripon Cathedral: behind fences<\/h2>\n

The Cathedral’s proposal for a one acre woodland-pasture would provide new habitat for wildlife. However, while it might eventually add to global biodiversity overall, it does little to uplift nature in the city itself.<\/p>\n

Significantly, the pocket of land is situated<\/a> 5.6km from Ripon. As Save the Trees campaigner Jenni Holman told the Canary<\/em>:<\/p>\n

It is in a farmer’s field. You can drive for 20 minutes, and then you have to walk across fields for 10 minutes to find that place.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What’s more, communities in Ripon will not see the benefits of this new woodland-pasture. This is because the land itself is privately owned.<\/p>\n

Tellingly, various statutory consultees have also disparaged the mitigation scheme itself. For instance, the council’s arboriculturalist argued that<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Planting trees within Azerley is not supported as this does not link to the development.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Meanwhile, the council’s ecologist stated that<\/a> while the location was suitable in “ecological terms” for growing trees that might become veterans, this would be:<\/p>\n

likely to take at least 200-300 years, which is the reason why veteran trees are considered effectively irreplaceable.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As such, the ecologist said that:<\/p>\n

For this reason this bespoke compensation would only be acceptable as a \u201csuitable compensation strategy\u201d, if decision-makers conclude, in accordance with the NPPF (180a), that there are \u201cwholly exceptional reasons\u201d which justify the loss of the veteran tree.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Conflicting information<\/h2>\n

Regardless, in step with its overall refusal to entertain an alternative site for the annex, the Cathedral has so far ploughed ahead with this as its mitigation strategy anyway.<\/p>\n

Initially, it proposed to<\/a> plant an acre of trees at a site near Studley, some 5.6km outside of Ripon. Then, its leaflets advertised<\/a> its promise to plant \u201cup to 300\u201d trees outside the city.<\/p>\n

However, campaigners have underscored the ambiguity surrounding the scheme. In particular, Holman and others have argued that<\/a> the Cathedral\u2019s information on it has been \u201cconflicting\u201d, pointing out that:<\/p>\n

For the majority of 2023, the Cathedral claimed that this off-site area would be \u2018at Studley\u2019, this changed in 2024 to \u2018near Studley\u2019 and now the Cathedral state \u2018outside the city.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In December 2023, the Cathedral told<\/a> Yorkshire Bylines<\/em> that \u201cdue process is taking its course and all relevant details will be put into the public domain at the appropriate time\u201d.<\/p>\n

But in February, Holman noted that<\/a> the Cathedral has since refused to disclose this information, telling campaigners that:<\/p>\n

Regarding the off-site land for planting trees: there is an agreement which is between the private landowner and the Cathedral and is a private matter.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, the Save the Trees campaigners challenged this. In the letter, they also argued that:<\/p>\n

As this \u2018off-site planting\u2019 is supposed to be compensation to the people of Ripon for the trees felled at Minster Gardens, it is not a \u2018private matter\u2019, but very much a matter of public interest.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Naturally, the Cathedral hasn\u2019t disclosed any further details to date.<\/p>\n

Ripon Cathedral: plantation for profit?<\/h2>\n

Given this, campaigners have been understandably wary of the agreement. As it currently stands, Holman explained that one of the few details the Cathedral has put out is that the it will be in place for 40 years. As such, she told the Canary<\/em> that:<\/p>\n

there’s also scepticism as to their plans for the trees after 40 years. There’s been mentions of what they think may happen to the trees after<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Holman explained that one fellow Save the Trees campaigner and Yorkshire Bylines<\/em> writer Brian McHugh has been looking into this. McHugh has suggested that the Cathedral could be hiding the commercial endgame for the offsetting woodland:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Why won't @riponcathedral<\/a> make public the agreement between them & the l\/owner to plant 300 trees to offset felling 11 trees?
Surely it can't be that these new ones will be fast growing for commercial sale+ more income?@WoodlandTrust<\/a> @alextomo<\/a> @alisonclareteal<\/a> #RiponCathedral<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/Hba6mc7XdH<\/a><\/p>\n

— Brian McHugh \"\ud83c\udf0f\"\"\ud83c\udff3\ufe0f\u200d\ud83c\udf08\" (@BrianMcHugh2011) December 17, 2023<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n