Agenda item

A new five-year management plan has been developed for Croxley Hall Woods, Croxley Green.

The new plan contains management actions for the woodland over the next five years from financial year 2025/26 until 2030/31. The detailed actions relate to woodland management for biodiversity and improvements to public access and interpretation.

Officers are recommending that the plan is approved by the Climate Change, Leisure and Housing committee and adopted by the Council. Should the plans be approved, Officers will seek to implement the actions within the plans over the next five years. Work will be completed within existing budgets or subject to external funding.

Recommendation

That the Climate Change and Leisure Committee:

·        Adopt the new 5-year Management Plan for Croxley Hall Woods

·        Give delegated authority to the Director of Finance to enter into a contract or funding agreement above the value of £25,000, subject to securing external funding to facilitate works to support the implementation of the Management Plans.

The Principal Trees and Woodlands Officer introduced the report.

Mr. Barry Grant spoke on the item highlighting what he viewed as limited community engagement, noting only 13 consultation responses received, and a lack of detailed feedback in the committee report. Key concerns raised by the speaker included the control of invasive ivy threatening tree health, the necessity for collaboration with neighbouring woodland owners such as the parish council, and London Underground TfL’s biodiversity plans, and opposition to proposed improvements to barrier access on Lavrock Lane, which residents feel is unnecessary. Additionally, the speaker sought clarification on the financial aspects of the woodland management plan, including budget specifics, reliance on external funding, and whether woodland maintenance is conducted by third-party contractors.

The officer acknowledged the points raised and expressed his preference to provide a written response. The Chair requested that the written responses be distributed to the committee members and sought input on whether to delay approval of the report until January or to partially approve it despite incomplete information. Officers confirmed that deferring the decision until January is feasible. The Chair also mentioned an alternative option of taking the report to the Policy & Resources Committee to avoid delaying work.

Members noted that a wider area of holly and ivy needing attention beyond what was initially mentioned in the report. It was also clarified that the access gate in question is located on parish council land. The Chair acknowledged the need to investigate the matter further and suggested noting the report and the questions raised. Councillor Chris Lloyd proposed that officers review the responses provided to residents and consider whether the matter should be taken to the Policy & Resources Committee or returned to the committee in January 2026.

Members expressed disappointment and raised questions about the consultation process, including how it was conducted, the time allowed for responses, and whether the low turnout indicated public disinterest. The Associate Director for Environment responded by explaining that the response rate was typical for such a management plan as residents tend to respond mainly when they disagree. Furthermore, the officer also assured that the consultation was conducted according to the usual consultation guidelines, promoted via social media and the council’s consultation platforms. Additionally, the officer noted that the variability in response rates can be attributed to human nature, where agreement often results in silence rather than feedback.

Members enquired whether any aspects of the plan would be missed or affected if delayed until January, and whether approval of certain parts could mitigate these effects. The officer explained that any urgent tree works, identified through general tree surveys, would continue as part of regular operations, ensuring critical tasks are not postponed despite the delay in approval of the plan.

Members continued to discuss the low response rates in certain consultations, contrasting them with more successful ones like the Eastbury play area. They advocated for more proactive engagement methods such as door-to-door outreach and physical presence in affected areas to increase participation and avoid costly rework. The officer defended the current consultation practices, emphasising that resources are allocated based on project scale, and that low response rates often reflect public agreement rather than failure. This view was supported by some Members who shared their experience of seeking feedback from around 200 residents, receiving mainly positive but limited verbal responses. Members clarified that they offered encouragement for ongoing review and improvement of consultation processes, and there was no intent to disrespect officers.

Members also offered praise to committee members on their efforts to engage residents and acknowledged the challenges in seeking responses from them.

The Chair proposed the following recommendation:

That the committee acknowledge the officers for their work on the report and ensuring that all committee members, including substitutes, receive responses to the questions. The report will either be taken to the Policy & Resources Committee in November or returned to the Climate Change & Leisure Committee in January for further consideration.

On being put to the Committee, the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being by general assent.

RESOLVED:

That the committee acknowledge the officers for their work on the report and ensuring that all committee members, including substitutes, receive responses to the questions. The report will either be taken to the Policy & Resources Committee in November or returned to the Climate Change & Leisure Committee in January for further consideration.