A High Court judge has granted permission for a legal challenge over the proposed Greencroft Forest scheme in County Durham.
The case has been brought by Lanchester Properties Ltd against the Forestry Commission’s decision to approve the 290-hectare project without requiring a full Environmental Impact Assessment.
The proposed development, located between Greencroft, Maiden Law, Lanchester and Iveston, would see up to 65 per cent of the site planted with Sitka Spruce as part of a commercial timber plantation.
Court Finds Environmental Concerns Arguable
The Court determined that it is arguable the Forestry Commission did not adequately consider the environmental sensitivity of the location. Particular concern relates to areas identified as medium and high sensitivity in landscape and heritage studies.
The scheme, advanced by investment firm True North in partnership with Apex Fund Administration, covers 290 hectares of farmland and has been described as one of the largest contiguous afforestation proposals in the UK in recent decades .
True North submitted its Environmental Impact Assessment screening application in January 2025. Lanchester Properties, part of the Lanchester Group, subsequently sought a judicial review after the Forestry Commission concluded that a full Environmental Impact Assessment was not required .
Community and Parish Council Concerns
Community groups, residents and local businesses have raised concerns about the scale of the single-species plantation and its potential impact on biodiversity, landscape character and heritage.
David Smith, Councillor at Lanchester Parish Council, said:
“We attended numerous meetings about the Greencroft Forest proposal and consistently raised our concerns, yet we do not feel those views were meaningfully taken into account. We also presented the response of Lanchester Parish Council at an open meeting in May 2024, which we were told would not form part of the decision-making process. To date, we have found no evidence in the public documentation that our submission was recorded or considered. For many residents, it felt as though the outcome had already been decided. As a parish council we feel that our submission, that of the County Council and the views of the local community need to form an essential part of the decision-making process, as required by UK Forestry Standard. In the documents provided by the Forestry Commission, there is no evidence that this has taken place.
“This is an area of high landscape value and long-standing agricultural heritage. The farmland in question has been worked responsibly by tenant farmers for generations, and the impact on those families and on the wider community has been significant. Our concerns have always centred on transparency, proper consultation and the need for decisions that genuinely reflect the character of the place and the people who live here. As this is an application supported by the Forestry Commission and determined internally by the Forestry Commission, we feel that there is a lack of independence in determining this application, and there has been a lack of external scrutiny” .
Statement from Lanchester Group Director
Caroline Cleary-MacArthur, director of the Lanchester Group, said:
“As both a director of a long-established local business and a resident of this community, I welcome the Court’s permission and look forward to the substantive hearing. Residents were not adequately informed about the true nature of this scheme, nor that it would be dominated by an industrial timber forest of predominantly Sitka Spruce. People were led to believe this was a biodiversity project when the evidence shows otherwise.
“What we want is simple: transparency, proper environmental scrutiny and decisions that respect both the landscape and the community living within it. This permission ruling paves the way for our argument that the principle that large-scale developments of this kind must be subject to full and robust assessment. As taxpayers, we call for proper scrutiny of which privately run, offshore projects are deemed viable for Government funding.”
What Happens Next
A full substantive hearing will now determine whether the Forestry Commission’s original decision was lawful. The outcome could have wider implications for how large-scale afforestation schemes are assessed and approved across the UK.
Become a Contributor at Consett Magazine
Government policies will stop farmers from farming, and wreck the remnants of our food producing industries.
Doug Knox public called for the rich to be taxed. Rich land owners are leaving the UK in 1000s
Tenant farmers are out of work
The land is being used in a way the public don’t like.
Mmm 🤔 be careful what you wish for
#buydirectfromfarm
#boycottsupermarkets
#votersareatfault
I have been following this for a while. Until you actually know the proposed area which is mostly grazing fields – meadowland – hedgerows – some wetland and deciduous native wooldand that has been like that for hundreds of years with its own established ecosystem .Imagine how much life and different species it supports yet they want to plant pine trees for cheap lumber and forever change the landscape to a midge infested ( like Keilder Forest) canopy of fast growing cheap timber. Lanchester Wines launched this legal challenge on behalf of people in the area and all l can say is well done for what you are doing and for the legal challenge.
Nellie Faulks
The world is going mad 😡
Christine Bell x
Angela Gowan yeah mothers known for awhile. Parish council get all the notifications for planning etc in advance.
We’ve otter, greater crested newts and rare snowdrops, all in the areas they’re going to ‘plant’
Christine Bell Shocking to even think about disrupting what is thriving there x
Forestry Commission needs to wake up to how British rural communities funding is changing. We’re supposed to create nature, not destroy it!