Woodland TPO Confirmed

We are delighted to confirm that Teignbridge District Council has unanimously voted to confirm the Woodland Tree Preservation Order (TPO) at Rackerhayes as permanent.

This decision follows overwhelming public support, with over 170 representations backing protection of this exceptional woodland. Councillors from across the committee endorsed the officer recommendation without modification.

This is a major step forward for the Save Our Trees campaign and for the wider Kingsteignton and Newton Abbot community.

However, during the meeting, comments were made suggesting that the 1999 Review of Old Mineral Permissions (ROMP) means the woodland’s loss is inevitable and that “we can’t stop” quarrying anyway.

That claim is misleading, and the officers’ own explanations make clear why.

This post explains what the TPO does, what the 1999 ROMP actually means, and why the future of this site is still very much undecided.

👉🏼 Watch the Council Meeting Here (20 minutes - YouTube)

What the Committee Actually Decided

The committee confirmed that the woodland:

• Is a long-established, naturally regenerated broadleaf woodland, dating back at least to the 19th century
• Has high public amenity value, visible across the A380 and from surrounding neighbourhoods
• Provides rare ecological continuity in an urban fringe landscape
• Functions as a single, coherent woodland unit, not a collection of isolated trees
• Is under credible threat of clearance, with no other regulatory mechanism capable of preventing premature loss

The presenting officer described it as one of the finest examples of naturally regenerated woodland he had seen in his professional life.

Crucially, officers were explicit that without a TPO, there would be no effective control to prevent wholesale clearance for purposes outside mineral permissions.

That risk is now removed.

What a Woodland TPO Does – And Why It Matters

A Woodland TPO does not grant automatic permission to remove trees, nor does it automatically block future proposals.

What it does do is fundamental:

• It prevents premature or unnecessary clearance
• It ensures every proposal affecting the woodland must be justified
• It requires public scrutiny and formal decision-making
• It removes the ability to quietly clear woodland outside a planning process

As officers stated repeatedly, tree protection and mineral permissions operate under separate legal regimes. One does not cancel out the other.

The TPO ensures that trees are not treated as disposable simply because mineral interests exist nearby.

The 1999 ROMP Does NOT Give Blanket Permission

During the debate, Councillor Bullivant asserted that national legislation and the 1999 ROMP mean the quarry will “eventually” happen and that replacement planting elsewhere would simply be required.

That interpretation was not supported by officers.

Here is what was actually clarified on the night:

1. The 1999 ROMP Was a Review, Not a Green Light

Officers confirmed that in 1999 Devon County Council reviewed historic mineral permissions and concluded only that clay extraction could, in principle, be considered, subject to modern conditions.

It was not a permission to clear woodland.
It was not a consent to reopen a quarry.
It was not an approval of any current proposal.

Any future extraction still requires:

• A full planning application
• Environmental Impact Assessment
• Tree surveys
• Ecological assessment
• Consideration of mitigation, avoidance and alternatives
• Compliance with modern planning policy

That process has not happened.

2. The Balance Is Not Pre-Decided

The Area Team Manager made this point very clearly:

If an application were to come forward, decision-makers would have to weigh the importance of the mineral reserve against the importance of preserving the woodland.

That balance is not settled, and officers explicitly stated it would be open to debate.

Claims that the outcome is predetermined are simply wrong.

3. Replacement Planting Is Not an Automatic Right

It was also suggested that national legislation allows woodland removal as long as trees are replaced elsewhere.

That is a serious oversimplification.

Replacement planting:

• Does not override Tree Preservation Orders
• Does not automatically justify loss of mature woodland
• Cannot replicate centuries of ecological continuity
• Must be assessed against biodiversity net gain law, habitat value and policy protection

As officers made clear, woodland of this quality cannot simply be traded away elsewhere without rigorous justification.

Why the TPO Changes Everything

Before this decision, the woodland was vulnerable.

As officers confirmed, without a TPO there would have been no effective control preventing clearance for reasons outside the ROMP, including by future landowners.

Now:

• Any tree works require consent
• Any loss must be justified
• Any future quarry proposal must confront the woodland’s protected status head-on
• The burden of proof lies firmly with the applicant

This is not symbolic protection.
It is real, enforceable, legal control.

A Line Has Been Drawn

The committee vote was unanimous.

Councillors recognised that this woodland is not incidental, not recent, and not replaceable. They recognised that allowing it to be lost without scrutiny would be unacceptable.

The idea that local authorities are powerless in the face of historic mineral permissions was explicitly contradicted by the officers advising the committee.

The future of this site is not decided.

And thanks to this TPO, the woodland now stands protected while that future is debated openly, lawfully, and in the public interest.

Thank You

This decision proves that informed, persistent community action works.

The fight is not over.

But for today, the trees are safe.