High court rules in favour of forest planting

Controversial plans to plant a large new forest in County Durham look to have moved a step closer after a High Court ruling found in its favour.

Investment firm True North wants to plant 600,000 trees at Greencroft, near Lanchester, as part of efforts to create a timber forest and holiday park.

However, a legal challenge brought by local firm Lanchester Properties argued the Forestry Commission wrongly allowed the scheme to go ahead without a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and in January the High Court ruled it should halt for a hearing of the case.

Judges have now ruled in favour of the developers, who said they were relieved, but opponents said they would consider an appeal.

In October, a High Court judge ruled the Forestry Commission applied its environmental planning rules appropriately and rejected Lanchester Group's request for permission to apply for a judicial review.

He said the commission had given "consideration to all relevant issues of landscape, character, views and mitigation".

But the company successfully applied for that to be reconsidered, with the second judge ordering a hearing should be held focusing on whether a full EIA needed to be submitted with the planning application.

Now a third judge, His Honour Judge Klein, has dismissed Lanchester Group's claim and said the Forestry Commission's decision-makers had given "proper consideration" to the "possible environmental impact of the forest".

Following the latest ruling, Harry Humble of True North Asset Partners Ltd said the firm was "relieved" with the "positive outcome".

He said it was "regrettable" the legal process had "taken up so much time and money, tied up valuable court resources and delayed much-needed tree planting in England".

He said he hoped the scheme would now "move forward" to bring the "benefits" of the forest.

Lanchester Properties, part of the Lanchester Group, which employs 400 local people, said it was considering seeking permission for an appeal.

Director Caroline Cleary-MacArthur said the firm was "naturally disappointed" but the case had been about advocating for rural communities.

"This has never been about opposing trees," she said, adding it was about "ensuring the right trees are planted in the right places".

Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.