So is the north of England really getting an enormous new forest?

A forest in Scunthorpe. Image: Getty.

The dendrophiles of northern England have something new to be excited about. The Northern Forest is a green megaproject which will see the planting of 50m trees over the next 25 years, creating a forest stretching from Liverpool to Hull along the M62 corridor.

Projects of this kind are long overdue. Forest cover in the UK is one of the worst in Europe at an estimated 12 per cent, compared to an average of 36 per cent across the rest of the EU. In the last few years, what’s more, levels of planting have been abysmal: the Woodland Trust claims that 2017 saw the lowest levels of new trees planted in England for years.

So the need is clear – and the benefits many. First up, deforestation is the world's second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. A new forest will thus help combat climate change.

The forest will also open up space for the reintroduction of wildlife long since absent from the north of England, like beavers and even lynxes, an indigenous British wildcat. (Perhaps we could have a lynx on the Royal Crest rather than the wildcat we pinched from the colonies?)

Trees also do wonders for soil protection and mitigating of flood risk: with all this green infrastructure, the Woodland Trust hope to reduce flood risk for 190,000 homes. That’s especially good news for the residents of beleaguered towns such as York, which have been hit repeatedly by flooding.

For those living in the great cities of the north, the trees would improve the quality of the air. At present, thousands in the region die every year from pollution (630 per year in Manchester; 1,000 across Yorkshire and Humberside).

In the US, where they have the money to test this sort of thing, it was found that trees deflected $6.8bn in healthcare costs. For the cities that will be enveloped by the Northern Forest, lives will literally be saved by these trees – and it will certainly alleviate pressure on the ever embattled NHS.  


On top of all that, the new forest would provide an estimated £2bn boost to the local economy through tourism, recreation and timber production. Oh, and it’d provide a lovely space for the 15m inhabitants of northern England, too.

Hold on though northerners, don’t start putting your walking boots on quite yet.  

Despite very keen to throw their names behind the project Theresa May and environment secretary Michael Gove have so far committed only £5.7m of government funds to the £500m project. This is going to pay for little more than a thin line of trees on either side of the M62 – more of a ‘Northern Hedgerow’ than the great forest imagined.

The rest of the money is to be raised through charitable contributions. That means raising a little under £20m a year, every year for the next quarter century: if it’s to succeed, the Northern Forest project will have to step up into the top 1.3 per cent of charities in terms of income, which sounds pretty challenging.

As Austin Brady, Director of Conservation at the Woodland Trust, wrote: “It’s not a government led initiative – it’s a bottom-up initiative.” The bottom will have to really step up to make this woody pipe dream a reality.
Planting 50m trees, though, is plausible. In 2016,the residents of Uttar Pradesh in India planted that same number in a day – we’ve got 25 years. 

 
 
 
 

What's actually in the UK government’s bailout package for Transport for London?

Wood Green Underground station, north London. Image: Getty.

On 14 May, hours before London’s transport authority ran out of money, the British government agreed to a financial rescue package. Many details of that bailout – its size, the fact it was roughly two-thirds cash and one-third loan, many conditions attached – have been known about for weeks. 

But the information was filtered through spokespeople, because the exact terms of the deal had not been published. This was clearly a source of frustration for London’s mayor Sadiq Khan, who stood to take the political heat for some of the ensuing cuts (to free travel for the old or young, say), but had no way of backing up his contention that the British government made him do it.

That changed Tuesday when Transport for London published this month's board papers, which include a copy of the letter in which transport secretary Grant Shapps sets out the exact terms of the bailout deal. You can read the whole thing here, if you’re so minded, but here are the three big things revealed in the new disclosure.

Firstly, there’s some flexibility in the size of the deal. The bailout was reported to be worth £1.6 billion, significantly less than the £1.9 billion that TfL wanted. In his letter, Shapps spells it out: “To the extent that the actual funding shortfall is greater or lesser than £1.6bn then the amount of Extraordinary Grant and TfL borrowing will increase pro rata, up to a maximum of £1.9bn in aggregate or reduce pro rata accordingly”. 

To put that in English, London’s transport network will not be grinding to a halt because the government didn’t believe TfL about how much money it would need. Up to a point, the money will be available without further negotiations.

The second big takeaway from these board papers is that negotiations will be going on anyway. This bail out is meant to keep TfL rolling until 17 October; but because the agency gets around three-quarters of its revenues from fares, and because the pandemic means fares are likely to be depressed for the foreseeable future, it’s not clear what is meant to happen after that. Social distancing, the board papers note, means that the network will only be able to handle 13 to 20% of normal passenger numbers, even when every service is running.


Shapps’ letter doesn’t answer this question, but it does at least give a sense of when an answer may be forthcoming. It promises “an immediate and broad ranging government-led review of TfL’s future financial position and future financial structure”, which will publish detailed recommendations by the end of August. That will take in fares, operating efficiencies, capital expenditure, “the current fiscal devolution arrangements” – basically, everything. 

The third thing we leaned from that letter is that, to the first approximation, every change to London’s transport policy that is now being rushed through was an explicit condition of this deal. Segregated cycle lanes, pavement extensions and road closures? All in there. So are the suspension of free travel for people under 18, or free peak-hours travel for those over 60. So are increases in the level of the congestion charge.

Many of these changes may be unpopular, but we now know they are not being embraced by London’s mayor entirely on their own merit: They’re being pushed by the Department of Transport as a condition of receiving the bailout. No wonder Khan was miffed that the latter hadn’t been published.

Jonn Elledge was founding editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.