Management Options for Small Woodlands in Maidstone · PDF fileTennyson’s Brook in...

Management Options for

Small Woodlands in

Maidstone Mid Kent Downs Countryside Partnership

June 2013

Management Options for Small

Woodlands in Maidstone

Date: June 17th 2013

Mid Kent Downs Countryside Partnership

Main contact: Mike Phillips ([email protected] – 01303 815170)

This report forms a part of the Kent Downs Woodfuel Pathfinder project.

The project is funded by the EU ERDF funded MULTIFOR Interreg project

(www.multifor.eu). It is match funded by Kent County Council and the

Forestry Commission and is delivered by the Kent Downs AONB Unit.

Support provided by this project is free of charge to the user.

Horish Wood

Cover photo. Tennyson’s Brook in Cuckoo Wood

© Tony Harwood

Management Options for Small Woodlands in Maidstone

Page 3

Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 5

2. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 6

2.1. LANDOWNER OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 7

2.2. DOCUMENT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................... 8

2.3. ABOUT THE WOODFUEL PATHFINDER .............................................................................................. 8

3. WOODLAND DETAILS ............................................................................................................... 9

3.1. HORISH WOOD.................................................................................................................................. 9

3.1.1. Description ............................................................................................................................. 10

3.1.2. History of Management ........................................................................................................ 10

3.1.3. Woodland resource .............................................................................................................. 11

3.1.4. Current management strategy ............................................................................................ 12

3.2. CUCKOO WOOD .............................................................................................................................. 12

3.2.1. Description ............................................................................................................................. 13

3.2.2. History of management ........................................................................................................ 13

3.2.3. Woodland resource .............................................................................................................. 14

3.2.4. Current management strategy ............................................................................................ 15

4. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................ 16

4.1. THE RISE OF THE WOODFUEL MARKET ........................................................................................... 16

4.2. THE VALUE OF TIMBER .................................................................................................................... 17

4.3. FIREWOOD AND FENCING VS WOOD CHIP ...................................................................................... 17

4.4. CASCADE USE OF BIOMASS ............................................................................................................ 18

4.5. A MANAGEMENT CASE STUDY ....................................................................................................... 19

4.6. GRANT FUNDING ............................................................................................................................. 21

4.7. HORISH WOOD: SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ............................................. 22

4.7.1. Site conditions ....................................................................................................................... 22

4.7.2. Access .................................................................................................................................... 22

4.7.3. Timber quality ........................................................................................................................ 22

4.7.4. Ownership and Local Interest ............................................................................................. 22

4.8. CUCKOO WOOD: SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ............................................ 22

4.8.1. Site conditions ....................................................................................................................... 22

4.8.2. Access .................................................................................................................................... 23

4.8.3. Timber quality ........................................................................................................................ 23

4.8.4. Ownership and local interest ............................................................................................... 23

5. POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT OPTIONS................................................................................. 24

5.1. USE OF CONTRACTORS TO MANAGE WOODLANDS ......................................................................... 24

5.2. LIMITATIONS OF CONTRACTORS ..................................................................................................... 24

5.2.1. Response of contractors to Horish Wood and Cuckoo Wood ........................................ 25

5.3. USE OF VOLUNTEERS TO MANAGE WOODLANDS ............................................................................ 27

5.3.1. Equipment, resources and training required ..................................................................... 27

5.4. EQUIPMENT, RESOURCES AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................. 28

5.5. A GUIDE TO THE BASIC ECONOMICS OF TIMBER, FIREWOOD AND WOOD CHIP ............................... 29

5.6. UTILISATION OF RENEWABLE HEAT INCENTIVE.............................................................................. 31


Page 4

5.6.1. Savings made by conversion to wood chip boiler and RHI ............................................ 31

6. SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ................. 34

APPENDIX 1: SITE PHOTOGRAPHY (HORISH WOOD) ............................................................. 35

APPENDIX 2: SITE PHOTOGRAPHY (CUCKOO WOOD) .......................................................... 37

APPENDIX 3: CONTRACTOR TELEPHONE INTERVIEW PROMPT SHEET ........................... 39


Page 5

1. Executive Summary

The Mid Kent Downs Countryside Partnership (MKDCP) was contracted by the Kent Downs

AONB Unit’s Woodfuel Pathfinder Development project to investigate the management options

for two woodlands in the Borough of Maidstone with a particular emphasis on the woodfuel

market. MKDCP had an existing relationship with the woodland owners and had prepared

Forestry Commission approved management plans. However, no management arrangements

had been made for these woods and this was the main obstacle to the implementation of the

management plans.

Reports were prepared for the woodlands that attempted to make an assessment of the value

of the woodland and to highlight some of the constraints to management that existed. This

report was then distributed to eight woodland contractors of varying sizes. These ranged from

one person operations to some of the larger contractors in the area as well as a newly formed

training provider aiming to provide woodland management training for the next generation of

woodland managers. Additionally, alternative options for managing woodlands were

investigated.

Of the contractors contacted several showed an interest in purchasing standing woods and

working to the management plans already in place. Horish Wood was generally the preferred

option as it is in a more rural location and access is slightly better. However, there are options

for both woodlands owners to negotiate contracts for the management of their woodlands. In

Horish Wood, compartment 3 which is mixed ash-hazel woodland will require additional

payments to contractors that could be sourced through a Forestry Commission Woodland

Improvement Grant.

Both woodlands have the potential to develop the use of volunteers in the woodland in order to

implement some of the uneconomic parts of the management plans that do not require the use

of specialist equipment such as ride management and thinning of newly planted trees.

External funding may need to be sourced to generate the capacity to carry out this work.

Detling Parish Council owns a village hall which is currently heated using gas. Initial estimates

suggest that the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) could provide around £3,000 of new income

each year. If fossil fuel savings are factored in the annual net benefit of a biomass boiler would

be around £4,000. Payback on a £20,000 investment would therefore be around five years.

The Council should investigate the RHI and biomass heating in more detail, and with support

from the Kent Downs Woodfuel Pathfinder, to determine if the biomass heating is viable. A key

attraction of implementing a biomass boiler project would be the opportunity to process

harvested timber from Horish Wood into fuel for the boiler (approximately 12 tonnes would be

required per annum).

Contractors, working on a day rate, could be used to harvest process timber with any surplus

being sold into established wood chip supply chains in Kent. There are also opportunities to

generate firewood from both woods and this should be investigated in parallel with options to

enhance volunteer involvement.


Page 6

2. Introduction

The increase in demand for woodfuel from both domestic and commercial properties is

beginning to have a positive impact on many of Kent’s larger woodlands. Traditionally

coppiced woodlands that had been left unmanaged in post-war years are now being actively

managed to provide not only woodfuel but fencing and bespoke furniture.

However, the same cannot be said for small woodlands where the volume of timber is low, the

quality of the wood inconsistent and access poor. It can be challenging to manage a small

woodland, particularly if the woodland owner does not have a history of woodland ownership or

a network of contacts to draw upon.

This report focuses on two small woodlands (under 15 hectares) in the Maidstone area. Horish

Wood is owned by Detling Parish Council. Cuckoo Wood is privately owned and was purchased

by local residents whose aim was to prevent development on the site and conserve the

woodland for future generations.

The report has the aim of detailing strategies for bringing the woodlands back into active

management that also enhances their biodiversity value.

Figure 1: The location of Horish Wood and Cuckoo Wood


Page 7

2.1. Landowner objectives and requirements

There are several reasons for researching management options for Horish Wood and Cuckoo

Wood:

• Biodiversity: Both woodlands are ancient woodlands that have been managed by

coppicing for the majority of their history. The diverse structure and mosaic pattern

created by a coppice regime has multiple biodiversity benefits which have been well

documented by amongst others the Forestry Commission1.

• Responsible stewardship: Both woodlands have only come into the possession of the

current owners in the past five years and neither have a background in woodland

ownership or management. However, both are keen to be responsible stewards for the

woodlands and would like to manage the woodlands for future generations.

• Woodfuel opportunities: Both woodlands have the potential to provide woodfuel in the

form of logs and/or chip into local supply chains. The potential provided by the

Renewable Heat Incentive is also of interest. Detling Parish Council own and manage a

village hall and would like to explore the options for using the timber from Horish Wood

to fuel a boiler used for heating and water at the village hall.

• Community involvement: Small woodlands of this type often require volunteer input

for management plans to be fully implemented and it would be an advantage for the

community to be involved in the management of the woodland resource.

There are also the following requirements for any work that is carried out on site:

• Cost: The cost of implementing any management needs to be cost neutral to the

woodland owners. Any costs incurred during woodland management need to be covered

by the value of the timber extracted or by sourcing external funding. Neither Detling

Parish Council nor Gorstyfields Ltd has funds available to manage their woodlands.

• Health and safety: Woodland work needs to be carried out in a manner that does not

endanger either the contractors or the public. Those operating equipment need to be

both competent and qualified (where appropriate). Both woodlands are well used by the

public with Cuckoo Wood being criss-crossed by several public footpaths.

• Management plans: Both woodlands have management plans that have been approved

by the Forestry Commission and felling licences have or are about to be issued. All work

needs to be within the constraints of the management plans. Whilst both woodlands have

approved management plans and felling licences neither are being managed.

• Biodiversity: The enhancement of biodiversity is key to the objectives of both woodland

owners. As such, coppicing needs to take place at an appropriate time of year and

additional management options such as the maintaining of open ground in the form of

glades and rides needs to be incorporated into management options. Horish Wood can

become very waterlogged due to the nature of the surface geology and the movement of

heavy machinery and extraction vehicles has the potential to cause significant damage.

• Forestry standards: It is essential that work carried out meets the UK Forestry

Standard2. The Standard sets out both legal requirements and best practice guidelines

1 Managing Ancient and Native Woodland in England.

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/FCPG201.pdf/$FILE/FCPG201.pdf 2 The UK Forestry Standard. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/theukforestrystandard


Page 8

for the management of woodland in terms of biodiversity, climate change, historic

environment, landscape, people, water and soils.

2.2. Document objectives

This document has the following objectives:

• To assess the current woodland resource and constraints to management.

• To determine if existing woodland contractors are interested in harvesting/managing the

woodlands.

• To provide a series of options for the on-going management of the woodlands to include

the potential for woodfuel.

• To provide estimated costs for each option and sources of funding if available.

Ultimately the document aims to provide a series of possible solutions that will enable Detling

Parish Council and Gorstyfields Ltd to manage their woodlands appropriately and sustainably at

a minimal cost whilst contributing to the woodfuel market as well as to biodiversity.

2.3. About the Woodfuel Pathfinder

The Kent Downs Woodfuel Pathfinder is led by the Kent Downs AONB and the Forestry

Commission and is a national pathfinder under Defra’s Woodland Carbon Task Force. Its

primary aim is to explore how the key elements of the woodheat supply chain can be

supported to establish a robust and self-sustaining industry. The project is funded by the EU

ERDF funded MULTIFOR Interreg project (www.multifor.eu). It is match funded by Kent

County Council and the Forestry Commission and is delivered by the Kent Downs AONB Unit.

Support provided by this project is free of charge to the user.


Page 9

3. Woodland details

Horish Wood and Cuckoo Wood were selected for this report as the Mid Kent Downs

Countryside Partnership has an existing relationship with both of the woodland owners, Detling

Parish Council and Gorstyfields Ltd respectively.

Both woodlands have Woodland Management Plans funded through the English Woodland

Grant Scheme that have been approved by the Forestry Commission. Horish Wood is within

the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty whilst Cuckoo Wood is just outside the

southern boundary of the designated area but impacts upon the views from the AONB. Both

woodlands are situated to the south of the scarp slope of the North Downs.

3.1. Horish Wood

Horish Wood was purchased by Detling Parish Council in order to provide recreational facilities

for residents and to conserve part of the Parish’s ancient woodland resource. At 13 hectares

the wood forms part of what would have been a larger woodland complex that has now been

split by a series of motorways, trunk roads and railways.

Figure 2: Horish Wood location map


Page 10

3.1.1. Description

Horish Wood is one of a series of wet woodlands that can be found along the spring line at the

foot of the North Downs on soils derived from gault clay. Over 90% of the boundary of the

woodland consists of the M20, A249 and High Speed 1 and the woodland also forms the

boundary of the Kent Downs AONB. The hydrology of the woodland has been drastically

altered by the construction of communications infrastructure and is considerably drier than it

would once have been. The woodland straddles the border between the parishes of Detling

and Boxley. The site is on the Ancient Woodland Inventory and has been designated as a

Local Wildlife Site by Kent Wildlife Trust.

3.1.2. History of Management

Horish Wood was known as Hurwash Wood until the late 19th century. The woodland has been

dissected twice in the 20th century, first by the M20 to the south and secondly by High Speed 1

in the north. Consequently, the woodland’s ownership is now split into three, each area under

separate ownership. Unlike many woodlands in this area, Horish Wood was never planted with

sweet chestnut and the vast majority of trees are native species. The compartments of Horish

Wood are shown in figure 3.

The woodland has been managed as coppice with 19th century maps suggesting that an area

was cleared between 1867 and 1897. This area now forms compartments 3a and 3b and is

Figure 3: Horish Wood compartment map


Page 11

high forest, quite possibly regrowth that was never replanted. The woodland has not been

managed in the recent past and is largely overstood coppice.

Figure 4: Horish Wood 1897

The eastern section of the site (compartment 1) as well as compartment 2 is newly created

due to earth movement during the construction of High Speed 1. This area was replanted with

mixed broadleaved species in the early 21st century with mixed success reflecting the variable

amounts of topsoil that was added to the land during the restoration process.

3.1.3. Woodland resource3

Compartments 3a and 3b are shown as a clearing on maps from 1897 and it appears as

though this area has never been replanted resulting in mixed species with ash and hazel

dominating, possibly hazel was the original crop before the clearing was created. This clearing

is shown in figure 4. This area has apparently not been managed in recent years resulting in a

mixed age of trees that have little economic value and are in need of management.

Compartments 3c and 3e are similar in structure with hazel and ash dominating though there

is less tree species diversity in comparison to 3a and 3b as these compartments were not

cleared in the 19th century. Compartment 3d is predominantly hazel coppice though it has not

been managed for many years.

Compartments 1 and 2 are both areas that were cleared as part of the construction of High

Speed 1 and were replanted with mixed broadleaved tree species as part of the restoration

process. Due to the lack of topsoil in compartments 1c and 1d the trees in these

compartments have never established themselves and now afford a low quality soil that

supports important grassland plant communities including bee orchid and common-spotted


Page 12

orchid. There is also a strip of grassland running between the northern boundary of

compartments 3a and 4a and High Speed 1. Oak standards with a diameter at breast height

of over 45cms are found throughout compartments 3 and 4 at a density of approximately 12

per hectare.

3.1.4. Current management strategy

The woodland is currently largely unmanaged although some rides have been cleared of

vegetation to ensure access for vehicles and some management of the ground flora has been

undertaken.

The aim of the current management strategy is to use contractors, external funding and

volunteers to achieve the following:

• Coppicing: Used to create a mosaic of different aged trees and the creation of scallops,

glades and rides will increase amount of woodland edge effect.

• Safety and access: Only dead, dying or dangerous trees near footpaths will be managed

in minimal intervention areas. Maintain a network of informal paths in the wood.

• Thinning regime: Thin recently planted trees to maintain an open structure as well as

maintaining open ground where it already exists, specifically in areas where shallow soil

thickness prevents tree growth.

• Partnerships and volunteers: Utilise local Countryside Management Partnership and/or

other similar organisations to help develop a volunteering group within the woodland.

Work with recording groups and other conservation groups to conduct walks and recording

projects in the wood.

A secondary consequence of these operations will be the creation of improved access for the

extraction of timber from the western section of the woodland. The opportunity to generate

new income from timber production could therefore be used to offset the costs of the

management of the wood. Grants, primarily from the Forestry Commission and other external

funders such as the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), will also actively be pursued in order to

facilitate the biodiversity improvements within the wood and to increase local people’s

involvement.

The main impediment to implementing the management plan is securing a contractor that is

able to carry out the coppicing without the Parish Council incurring costs. The level of

volunteer input at Horish input, whilst very dedicated, is limited and insufficient for effective

management.

3.2. Cuckoo Wood

Cuckoo Wood was purchased by Gorstyfields Ltd in order to prevent development of the area

when the site was auctioned in 2011. The aim is now to manage the woodland to maximise its

biodiversity value. At 12.4 hectares the wood forms part of what would have been a larger

woodland complex on sandy soils to the north of the urban area of Maidstone.

3 The information used for this section has been gathered during site visits used to create management plans.


Page 13

3.2.1. Description

Cuckoo Wood was formerly mixed broadleaved ancient woodland on a north facing slope just

to the north of Sandling Lane in Penenden Heath. A stream known as Tennyson’s Brook is

found at the bottom of the slope along the northern boundary of the site. The soils are

predominantly sandy and acidic being derived from the Greensand series though more base-

rich and slightly more clayey soils can be found on the lower slopes and floodplain of the

stream. The site is a Local Wildlife Site and is in the process of being designated as a Local

Nature Reserve. Cuckoo Wood’s northern boundary is within 500m of the Kent Downs AONB

boundary.

Figure 5: Cuckoo Wood location map

3.2.2. History of management

Most of the woodland has been converted to sweet chestnut coppice which has been actively

managed in the past with the last management taking place between 2000 and 2005. Some


Page 14

of the lower slopes have not been coppiced in recent years and have a higher percentage of

hornbeam and hazel stools. Ash and alder predominate in the stream floodplain and is

unmanaged. Storm damage is frequent in this area with high levels of fallen deadwood. Oak

standards are few and far between, predominantly on the lower slopes. There is no evidence

of ride management other than footpaths which have been kept clear by walkers.

The woodland was purchased in 2011 by Gorstyfields Limited with the intent of managing the

woodland specifically for its wildlife value using the value of the timber to help fund these

aims.

3.2.3. Woodland resource

The majority of the woodland is predominantly sweet chestnut coppice with more species

diversity as the woodland slopes down towards the northern boundary. Mature alder

dominates in a thin strip on the northern boundary in the damper area surrounding the brook

(compartment 5) and ash and sycamore dominate in compartment 1. The compartments are

shown in figure 6.

Coppicing has taken place in compartments 6, 8 and 9 between 2000 and 2005. It is not

known when coppicing took place in other compartments of the wood though compartments 2,

3, 7, 10, 11 and 12 have all been coppiced in the past though not for at least 30 years.

Figure 6: Cuckoo Wood compartment map


Page 15

Sycamore and Robinia pseudoacacia have self-seeded, throughout the wood and are a

particular problem in areas of recent coppicing. Mature trees are uncommon throughout the

wood with only two pedunculate oaks and several Robinia pseudoacacia having a diameter at

breast height of greater than 30cms. The information used for this section has been gathered

during site visits used to create management plans.

3.2.4. Current management strategy

There is currently no management taking place at Cuckoo Wood though the aim is to use

contractors, external funding and volunteers to achieve the following:

• Coppicing: Used to create a mosaic of different aged trees and the creation of scallops,

glades and rides will increase amount of woodland edge effect.

• Safety and access: Only dead, dying or dangerous trees near footpaths will be managed

in minimal intervention areas. Maintain a network of informal paths in the wood.

• Partnerships and volunteers: Utilise local Countryside Management Partnership and/or

other similar organisations to help develop a volunteering group within the woodland.

Work with recording groups and other conservation groups to conduct walks and recording

projects in the wood.

• Non-native invasive species: Will be controlled by repeated cutting in the first instance.

Chemicals will only be used if this strategy proves to be unsuccessful.

The main impediment to implementing the management plan is being able to find a contractor

that is able to carry out the coppicing without incurring costs. There is also currently only

limited, but very dedicated, volunteer input at Cuckoo Wood.


Page 16

4. Opportunities and constraints

Opportunities to bring woodlands into a positive management regime are dependent upon key

features such as the value of the timber, access to the woodland, the availability of local

contractors, size and capacity of staff and volunteers. Future management options will be

informed by the opportunities that exist on each site and will also be tailored according to the

following factors:

• Ensuring that biodiversity is enhanced rather than compromised.

• Whether the site size, access, species composition and terrain allow contractors to

profitably fell and extract timber.

• The level of volunteer involvement to assist with felling and processing of timber.

• The level of support given to assist the woodland owners with decision making.

• The impact of felling on local residents and the importance of both informing and

involving residents in the decision making process.

4.1. The rise of the woodfuel market

In post-war years the level of coppicing declined drastically as open fires in homes were

replaced with alternative heating systems. Fencing and other woodland products were

increasingly sourced from overseas and alternative materials were found in many instances.

Consequently much of the coppice woodland was converted to either other land uses or to

plantation forestry with the majority of the remaining resource left unmanaged as shown

below.

Table 1: Area of coppice in the UK

Year Total (‘000 hectares)

1924 213

1947 140

1965 29

1980 40

1997 23

In the latter part of the twentieth century and the first years of the twenty-first century most

coppicing that took place was undertaken by conservation organisations and on Forestry

Commission sites where biodiversity benefits and exemplar management drove decision

making. Small, independently owned woodlands were rarely managed and became overstood.

As fossil fuel prices began to rise and wood burning stoves and open fires became increasingly

popular the demand for woodfuel steadily started to rise. Local authorities and other

organisations are now increasingly fitting wood fuelled boilers to office complexes and the

introduction of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) in 2011 by central government offering

incentives for fitting woodfuel boilers has also served to increase the demand for woodfuel.

The net result of changes in this market has led to the rejuvenation of many coppice

woodlands as they have become profitable to harvest once more. For the first time in several

decades, small woodland owners can view the timber in their woodlands as a valuable

Source: The Silviculture and Management of Coppice Woodlands


Page 17

economic resource. This report aims to utilise this trend to provide financially viable

management options for small woodlands.

The Woodfuel Pathfinder project was set up as a response to the current interest in woodfuel

and the Renewable Heat Incentive and the need to get unmanaged woodland back into

management.

Table 2: RHI uptake and installed capacity in May 2013

Uptake Installed Capacity (MW)

Biogas 2 0

Solid Biomass Boiler 1,321 301

Deep Geothermal - -

Ground Source Heat Pump

(GSHP)

47 3

Municipal Solid Waste - -

Solar Thermal 57 1

Water Source Heat Pump

(WSHP)

5 0

Bio-Methane 1 -

Total 1,433 306

Source: Ofgem

4.2. The value of timber

Woodland can be managed for a variety of reasons by a range of difference contractors,

companies and organisations. Work carried out by the Woodfuel Pathfinder project has

identified the following approximate pricing in East Kent (sourced from contractors who

purchase standing wood, harvest timber and process for fencing and firewood):

• Chip wood (Soft)

o £21 per tonne roadside (range £19-£25)

o £28-29 per tonne delivered

• Chip wood (Hard)

o £21 per tonne roadside (range £17-£25)

o £28-29 per tonne delivered

• Firewood

o £40 per tonne roadside

o £50 per tonne delivered

• Supply chain – value added:

o First processor – buys standing wood for £5-8 per tonne standing

o Second processor – buys timber at roadside for £21-34 per tonne

o End user – Avg. £100 per cubic metre for firewood or £100 per tonne for chip

4.3. Firewood and fencing Vs wood chip

The cost of purchase, felling and extraction typically ranges between £19 and £31 per tonne.

Given that the gross income for (hardwood) firewood and fencing can add up to £7-10,000 per

acre, wood chip - at only around £100 per tonne (including delivery but excluding VAT) - is an


Page 18

unattractive option for most ‘traditional’ cutters for whom chipping timber actually ‘destroys’

value rather than adding it. As a woodland ‘product’ wood chip only really makes economic

sense to a woodland owner with a biomass boiler owner or a wood chip supply company with

many multi-annual supply contracts.

However, it is also clear that firewood is a high margin product and our research indicates that

if woodland owners or managers can sell firewood directly to consumers, additional value can

be added to the timber extracted. MBC’s choice is, therefore, to either sell standing wood to a

contractor or to take ‘control’ of harvesting and capture the additional value that comes with

additional processing (i.e. from raw timber stems into timber for fencing, firewood, kindling

and even saw logs for furniture and construction).

Overall it is clear that the economics of woodland management can be attractive, but they

depend heavily on who is doing the hard work and how value is added to the harvested

material. Small woods in particular are economically challenging which is why novel methods

of management need to be found.

4.4. Cascade use of biomass

Whilst the main focus of this report is the management of woodlands for positive biodiversity

benefits and improved economics, via woodfuel and other value added activities, there are

other uses of harvested timber that might influence the decisions made by a woodland

contractor. For example, Figure 8 describes the ‘cascade use of biomass’ after Shalaby4 which

suggests that woodfuel will only be considered after higher value wood products have either

been utilised or do not exist.

Relating this to the experience in Kent, good quality sweet chestnut can be used for various

fencing products and good quality woods from substantial trees can be used for furniture.

However, unmanaged, overstood woodlands often provide little in the way of options other

than firewood, primarily because the lack of management has resulted in low quality timber

(i.e. stems that are twisted and bent).

4 Emad A. Shalaby (2013). Biofuel: Sources, Extraction and Determination, Liquid, Gaseous and Solid Biofuels -

Conversion Techniques, Prof. Zhen Fang (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-1050-7, InTech, DOI: 10.5772/51943. Available

from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/liquid-gaseous-and-solid-biofuels-conversion-techniques/biofuel-sources-

extraction-and-determination.


Page 19

4.5. A Management Case Study

Lower Fullingpits Wood is owned by Maidstone Borough Council but is rented and now

managed by the Vinters Valley Park Trust (VVPT) for a peppercorn rent. The woodland is

predominantly sweet chestnut and is approximately 4.5 hectares in size.

Figure 8: Managed sweet chestnut coppice in Lower Fullingpits Wood

Figure 7: Cascade use of biomass. Source: Shalaby (2013)


Page 20

When Maidstone Borough Council initially approached a contractor to coppice the woodland a

fee of approximately £2,000 per acre was quoted. VVPT subsequently started managing the

woodland in 2007 with the main output product being firewood.

The site warden (Steve Songhurst) indicated that the labour requirements are modest at

approximately 8 days per year for felling and 12 to 15 days for processing pre-sale. This leads

to approximately 30 deliveries of 1.3 cubic metres of firewood to local residents at a cost of

between £40 and £50 per delivery.

Whilst these prices are well below the market rate (see Figure 9) most of the output purchased

by the volunteers, who help with processing, and to nearby residents to help foster good

relationships. The income generated of between £1,200 and £1,500 covers the cost of fuel

and equipment and provides some additional income for VVPT. Research into the retail price

of delivered logs in Kent undertaken by the Kent Downs Woodfuel Pathfinder indicates that a

representative price for a 1.3 cubic metre load of logs is around £100. This suggests that the

potential income from small scale projects such as this could be significantly higher. However,

the goodwill of volunteers and local residents may be compromised by charging too high a

price for locally sourced logs.

This particular arrangement is possible only because of the following factors:

• Maidstone Borough Council funded the site warden’s training (NPTC chainsaw).

• VVPT had access to a mini tractor and trailer that are used for extraction and delivery.

• There is a willing group of volunteers who help process felled timber.

• The site warden’s salary is covered via a range of funding streams not including MBC.

This is an example of a local solution being found to solve a specific problem. Whilst it may be

possible for the wood to be sold at a higher price the model may breakdown if the site

warden’s salary had to be found from the income generated from firewood (which is currently

below the market rate). Therefore, unless further efficiencies can be found during the

processing phase of production, projects such as this require volunteers without which

additional funding for staff would be required.

The main opportunity at Lower Fullingpits Wood, according to the site warden, would be the

hire or purchase of an automated firewood processor. This machine automates the process of

splitting logs into usable lengths for firewood. Its chief advantage is that it dramatically

reduces the amount of time that would be spent processing the felled timber.


Page 21

Figure 9: Log prices for delivered loads from selected suppliers in East Kent (Source: AONB Unit, October

2012)

4.6. Grant funding

Whilst the most sustainable method of managing woodlands is for the sale price of the timber

to cover the costs of extraction and management this is not always possible. There are

alternative sources of funding that can be utilised in order to help cover the costs of

sustainable woodland management.

The English Woodland Grant Scheme is a funding source managed by the Forestry

Commission open to all woodland owners that provides support over a variety of different

themes:

• Woodland Planning Grants: For production of management plans including felling

licences to cover the work outlined.

• Woodland Management Grants: Support uneconomic management work in woods.

• Woodland Improvement Grants: Provide for infrastructure improvements that can

support access, extraction or the removal of invasive species.

• Woodfuel Woodland Improvement Grant: Support for capital projects that directly

lead to an increase in the woodfuel extracted from the woodland.

• Woodland Regeneration Grants: For improvements to woodland following felling by

planting that increases the stocking density.

Within both woodlands there are opportunities for Woodland Improvement Grants in areas

where uneconomic coppicing, group felling and ride management takes place. This provides

the opportunity for woodland management work to be funded through additional sources other

than just the income from felling timber. However, there is an administrative role required as

this work does need to be overseen and the grants applied for and claimed.


Page 22

4.7. Horish Wood: Summary of opportunities and constraints

4.7.1. Site conditions

Horish Wood, despite the changes in hydrology caused by the construction of both the M20

and High Speed 1, remains a wet woodland. During periods of high rainfall the movement of

heavy machinery within the wood may prove to be highly destructive to rides and soils. It

may be that extraction of timber is only possible during drier months. The terrain within

Horish Wood is predominantly flat and does not provide a challenge for felling or extraction.

4.7.2. Access

There is metalled road access from Hockers Lane in the east with a limited area for stacking

and loading. However, the ride system within the woodland for extraction is limited. There is

also a secondary access point that leads to the A249 which is a dual carriageway and using

this access point may be unfeasible due to the dangers posed by fast moving traffic.

4.7.3. Timber quality

Compartment 4 as shown in figure 3 is predominantly hornbeam at a reasonable density that

is overstood and has not been managed for many years. Firewood is the only realistic use for

this timber. Compartment 3 is mixed deciduous with ash, cherry, hazel and a variety of other

species. Whilst it is possible that some of this wood could be sold for firewood and possibly

furniture the volume of usable timber is not high. However, as mentioned in section 4.4 there

may be grant funding available to assist with the costs of managing these sections. Oak

standards are found in high densities in Horish Wood but there are no plans for these trees to

be felled.

4.7.4. Ownership and Local Interest

The woodland is owned by Detiling Parish Council and is used for amenity purposes by local

people. There is already one dedicated volunteer who has undertaken considerable amounts

of work improving access to the site amongst other things. There is the potential to increase

the level of volunteer involvement to carry out general maintenance tasks that may include

ride maintenance and glade creation/clearing. As with all green spaces used by the public,

when work is undertaken in the woodland that may appear to be drastic it will need to be

accompanied by efforts to inform the local population of what is being done and why.

4.8. Cuckoo Wood: Summary of opportunities and constraints

4.8.1. Site conditions

Cuckoo Wood is on predominantly sandy soils that are free draining. This should present no

constraint to working on the site at any time of the year. The southern section of the wood is

relatively flat apart from a valley that runs from south to north in the eastern section of the

woodland. However, there are very steep slopes just to the south of the stream at the

northern end of the site. Only limited work is anticipated in this section of the woodland and

extraction may not be necessary.


Page 23

4.8.2. Access

There is a short track leading to Sandling Lane at the south of the site. Otherwise access is

limited and the site is not well suited to large lorries.

4.8.3. Timber quality

The majority of the southern section of the woodland as shown in figure 6 is sweet chestnut

coppice ranging in age from 5 years to over 30. This wood is at a high stocking density and is

suitable for both fencing and firewood. Towards the northern edge of Cuckoo Wood the

compartments contain a mixture of broadleaved trees that would be suitable for firewood. The

stream floodplain is dominated by alder though this area has been earmarked as a non-

intervention area with the exception of small areas of selective felling to create areas of light

around the stream. There are only a handful of standards (oak and Robinia pseudoacacia)

within the wood.

4.8.4. Ownership and local interest

The woodland is privately owned though the owners’ priorities are to protect the woodland

from potential development, to enhance the biodiversity value of the wood and to maintain a

well-used public amenity. Coppicing will form a major part of the biodiversity objectives.

Volunteering does not currently take place in Cuckoo Wood though there is the potential for

local people to be involved in conservation work. Local residents’ association have also taken

a keen interest in the wood, particularly the sections of the woodland that are not within

definitive ownership. As with all green spaces used by the public, when work is undertaken in

the woodland that may appear to be drastic it will need to be accompanied by efforts to inform

the local population of what is being done and why. Cuckoo Wood also has several footpaths

that are well used by dog walkers and for other leisure pursuits.


Page 24

5. Potential management options

5.1. Use of contractors to manage woodlands

In April and May 2013 a selection of woodland contractors were contacted with information

about the woodland resource at Horish and Cuckoo Woods and asked to comment. The

information given showed the mapped woodland resource as well as an assessment of the

quality of the woodlands.

This was followed up by a telephone interview that aimed to investigate the reasons why they

either showed interest in the woodland resource or not. Where interest was shown site visits

were also undertaken. The questionnaire used during telephone interviews can be found in

Appendix 35.

There are three main approaches to using contractors to manage woodland:

• Standing sale: If timber is of sufficient quality a contractor will pay for the right to cut

and remove trees in particular areas of a woodland and then process and sell the timber

as they see fit. The advantage of this approach is that it provides an income for the

woodland owner, although this is usually very modest at around £2-400 per acre. The

woodland will be managed according to the specifications set out in a management plan

which is usually approved by the Forestry Commission in advance of harvesting.

• Pay to cut: In some situations timber, access and topography is so poor that a

contractor would need to be paid to manage woodland to the specifications of a

management plan. Contracts are similar to those for standing sales, but despite the fee

paid to the contractor the felled timber remains the property of the contractor.

• Day rate: This method can be applied when the landowner has a market for the felled

timber and simply wants it extracted for sale at a later date (or for use onsite as wood

chip). The standard day rate is usually between £1-200 per day per cutter.

Due to the nature of the woodland included in this study the normal routes to management are

the ‘pay to cut’ and ‘day rate’ approaches. In addition to the expertise that they provide the

key additional benefit of using contractors is that will provide their own equipment (i.e.

chainsaws, forwarders and tractors with grabs).

5.2. Limitations of contractors

Whilst contractors can be used effectively to manage compartments within larger woodlands

they will not manage all aspects of work necessary to ensure that the objectives of the

management plans are met. The following limitations may apply:

• Compartment size: Economies of scale operate for contractors as the logistics of

coppicing an area necessitate start-up costs including the movement of equipment and

arranging for extraction and movement of timber. Hence, small compartments may not

prove to be economically attractive. Alternative management options may be needed

where small compartments are to be managed.

5 During the questionnaire it was stressed that contractors would not be held to any prices and offers made but that

their comments would be passed to the relevant woodland owners.


Page 25

• Additional management prescriptions: Areas of the woodland where coppicing is not

the primary management tool are unlikely to be taken on by a contractor without

payment. For example, the maintenance of ride systems and thinning of newly planted

trees would often outside the remit of an agreement between the woodland owner and a

short-term contract for standing wood.

5.2.1. Response of contractors to Horish Wood and Cuckoo Wood

The names of the contractors have been omitted from this report but details of those that

showed an interest in the woodlands have been passed to the landowners. A summary of the

response of each contractor is shown below.

Table 3: Summary of contractors’ responses

Horish Wood Cuckoo

Wood Day rate Notes

1

Interested to use as a training base. Would work at no cost to owner and would implement

most of management plan. Would retain grants from Forestry Commission

No site visit made as yet

but likely to be interested

Price

negotiable

Flexibility to work uneconomic areas of woodland that serve

as training areas. Prefer long term contract (5-7 years)

2 Interested in compartment 4 – needs supplementary income for coppicing compartment 3

No interest Approx. £150 per day for

cutting

Would manage uneconomic coppice at approximately £500 per acre

3 Interested but no site visit made yet

Interested but no site visit made yet

£450 per day for two people and chipper

4 Interested and will pay for the right wood but no site visit made yet

Interested and will pay for

the right wood but no site

visit made yet

Price negotiable

5 Interested but no site visit made yet

Interested but no site visit made yet

6 Interested in standing sale Interested in standing sale

7 No interest No interest Does not work

for a day rate

Suggests that smaller contractors may be interested in both woodlands

8 Not interested in buying

compartments Not interested

£250 per day

for two cutters

Use of horses for extraction –

low impact method

Contractor 1: This contractor is a charitable trust that aims to provide employment and

training opportunities in forestry to ex-military personnel, young people and ex-offenders. The

secondary aim of the charity is to bring overstood ancient woodlands back into management.

As a consequence of the charitable aims of the organisation they have a different financial

model from most private contractors and are able to operate in woodlands that would, under

normal circumstances, be uneconomic.

• In principle, the contractor would be interested in managing Horish and Cuckoo Woods

but would need to visit the woods to confirm this.

• It would be anticipated that no fee would be paid (i.e. the contractor would cut for free

and would take ownership of the timber).

• They would insist on a Forestry Commission approved management plan.


Page 26

• Would want to be able to claim any Woodland Grant Scheme monies available and would

reserve the right to raise additional funding to support their activities in the wood.

• Would require a 5 to 7 year contract in order to forward plan their operations.

• Challenging woodlands are seen as a useful training tool.

• Would be keen to involve the local community and volunteers in the work where possible.

Contractor 2: A one-person company that specialises in woodfuel and fencing materials.

• Only showed an interest in Horish Wood.

• Would not charge for coppicing compartment 4 but would want supplementary payment

afforded by the Woodland Grant Scheme’s Woodland Improvement Grant to manage

compartment 3.

• Would ideally want to coppice woodland at least 2 acres per season due to the cost of

moving machinery to the site.

• Did not declare an interest in Cuckoo Wood due to the difficulties of felling near the road,

the abundance of small sycamore and Robinia pseudoacacia and the presence of

homeless people living in the wood when the site visit took place. It was also considered

that the standing wood was not of a sufficient quality. He also felt uncomfortable leaving

machinery unattended due to the urban setting.

• Stated that a better developed ride system at Cuckoo Wood would help make extraction

easier and would make it more appealing to contractors.

Contractor 3: A two-person company that specialises in arboricultural work and has some

experience of woodland management.

• The company is particularly keen to work on biodiversity management projects.

• Is interested in working at both Horish and Cuckoo Wood but requires a site visit to

gather more information - particular interest in Horish Wood.

• Would work on a day rate at approximately £450 a day for two people.

• Would be prepared to use grants to supplement work in uneconomic areas.

Contractor 4: Fencing company specialising in sweet chestnut - also sells firewood.

• Interested in both Horish Wood and Cuckoo Wood and will be prepared to pay for the

rights to coppice if the wood is of a high enough quality.

• Would be prepared to work for a day rate.

Contractor 5: Part of a large woodfuel company that provides wood chip and fencing

products.

• Has visited Cuckoo Wood and is interested in the sweet chestnut woodland. Will also

visit Horish Wood and make a decision when a visit has been made.

• Would be interested in working in uneconomic woodlands should grant funding be made

available.

Contractor 6: A Lenham based company that provide fencing materials and firewood.

• Interested in meeting Cuckoo Wood owners to discuss standing sale and would coppice in

the winter.

• Also interested in Horish Wood, especially if there was grant funding to support felling in

the ash-hazel areas of the woodland.


Page 27

Contractor 7: A larger operation dealing in fencing materials and some firewood.

• no interest in managing Horish or Cuckoo Wood. Noted that the urban nature of Cuckoo

Wood caused added complications but that the small amounts of coppicing in one year

made it too small to be profitable.

• Also noted that he knew some small contractors who may be interested if nobody was

fund to take on the management of woods.

Contractor 8: A small company that predominantly undertakes contract work using horses

and occasionally markets timber as fencing materials or firewood. The use of horses for

extraction could be particularly beneficial in Horish Wood during wet periods.

• Has no interest in a standing sale.

• Is very keen to work as a contractor, particularly in Horish Wood.

• Cutting costs are approximately £250 per day for two cutters.

• Can provide forwarder plus horses for £250 per day and would extract approximately 40

tonnes from Horish Wood per day.

5.3. Use of volunteers to manage woodlands

The potential to use volunteers at both Horish and Cuckoo Woods is high with a key volunteer

already active at Horish Wood and interest in volunteer activities having already been shown at

Cuckoo Wood.

Whilst volunteers are unlikely to carry out large scale coppicing there is the potential for

volunteers to manage rides and glades, secure access, create habitat piles, remove invasive

species as well as a range of other woodland tasks, all of which help to implement the

management plans in place at Horish and Cuckoo Woods.

5.3.1. Equipment, resources and training required

The equipment and resources required by volunteers will depend upon the type of work that is

proposed and may range from small amounts of hand tools to chainsaws (including training

and personal protective equipment).

The organisation of volunteer groups needs to be considered carefully. Insurance cover will be

required and a significant amount of time needs to be devoted to promotion, organisation of

activities and management of volunteer discrete tasks to ensure that they are meeting the

objectives of the management plan.

There are examples of volunteers being used to help manage woodlands and this can range

from occasional litter picks to the complete management of a woodland. Volunteers can also

act to compliment the work of contractors to ensure that the finer points of a management

plan are implemented where this would not otherwise be possible due to cost.


Page 28

Table 4: Strengths and weaknesses of volunteer groups

Strengths Weaknesses

A volunteer group would be able to apply for

funding to provide both tools and for the

implementation of the management plan.

Additional people may bring different ideas about

the use of woodlands and what is appropriate

management.

Volunteers can increase the sense of

‘ownership’ of the woods within the local

community and can act as ‘eyes and ears’ for

the woodland by reporting anti-social

behaviour and notifying owners of

dangerous trees and other issues within the

woodland.

Identifying key volunteers to run the group and to

set up all the necessary infrastructure for the

group to operate can be both challenging and time

consuming. However, if external funding is

sourced an professional organisation can be used

to help set up volunteer activities.

Volunteers can be used to develop an income

from the wood by managing small areas of

wood and selling timber to local people (see

Fullingpits Wood case study in section 4.4).

Working with volunteer groups can bring

additional risks that would require mitigation, for

example via training, risk assessments,

equipment and insurance.

A volunteer group can provide additional

ideas for managing a woodland and relieve

the burden on a management committee.

5.4. Equipment, resources and training requirements

As a guide the following would be required to extract and process timber:

Equipment:

• Chainsaws and personal protective equipment (PPE). Approximately £1,000 per cutter.

• Means of extraction.

o This could be a forwarder for larger scale operations or a mini-tractor with trailer

for smaller scale works.

o Prices vary and further research needs to be done to ascertain exact prices but

the cost will be around £10,000. It may be possible to hire machinery and seek

support from local people with access to suitable equipment (such as farmers).

• A wood processor will dramatically reduce the amount of time taken to process logs to

the point where they can be sold.

o These can be purchased second hand from as little as £2,000 to £7,000

(depending on the degree of sophistication and age) and cost from £8-15,000

new. Fuelwood (Warwick) Limited6 manufacture firewood processing machinery

and act as agents for the main brands such as Japa, Transaw and Sami. Other

well-known brands include Hakki, Pilke and Posch.

Other resources:

• Felled timber needs to be seasoned to reduce moisture content prior to burning. It is

sufficient for felled timber to be stacked in the wood for at least six months prior to

processing. Once processed logs should be kept undercover. Bagging should ideally

take place as part of the processing activity.

o At Lower Fullingpits Wood the logs are stored within the wood but often logs are

stored under cover before being sold.

6 http://www.fuelwood.co.uk/


Page 29

o Bespoke temporary sheds can be built at relatively low cost. A concrete floor

would be optimal but not essential.

o There may have redundant storage facilities nearby that can be used as a timber

aggregation and processing location.

Training:

• All operators of machinery would need to be trained in safe usage by a competent person

(such as a contractor familiar with log processors).

o We would recommend that an experienced chainsaw operator is used to fell

trees and volunteers used to help with extraction and processing.

o Part-time and short courses on various aspects of woodland management are

available from Hadlow College, Plumpton College and East Malling Research.

o Minimum training for chainsaw operators (NPTC CS30/31) cost around £1,000

(Plumpton) for a seven day course (including exams).

o More involved forestry/woodland management courses and apprenticeships are

also available from several local training providers.

Although these costs may be prohibitive in the short-term an alternative option is to use

contractors for some of the processes such as felling or extraction using volunteers where

appropriate. Grant funding may also be available to cover part of the costs of machinery and

the project in its entirety could qualify for external funding.

5.5. A guide to the basic economics of timber, firewood and wood chip

Finding alternatives to contractors can be fundamental to the successful management of small

woods. In order of value-added (low to high) timber can be:

• Processed into wood chip and sold to wood chip buyer.

• Sold unprocessed at roadside to timber/chip wood/firewood buyers.

• Timber for fencing separated, cut length and processed into various products such as

pails, post and rail and strainers (medium price / medium volume).

• Highest quality stems separated and sold as saw logs (high price / low volume).

• Lowest quality timber processed into firewood and sold directly to public (high price /

high volume).

• Process into wood chip and self-supply own biomass boiler.

The highest prices for timber are often achieved when wood is processed and sold

independently with the potential to earn approximately £100 per cubic metre. As such there is

clearly an opportunity to process extracted timber into firewood and using the income to offset

management costs. To help quantify this opportunity the following provides some basic

estimates for the potential income that might be possible.

Based on yield class and rotation we can conservatively assume that an acre of chestnut

coppice woodland would provide between 40 and 80 tonnes per acre:

• 25 year rotation

o Yield class 12 = 300 tonnes per ha or 120 per acre

o Assume 80-100 tonnes per acre


Page 30

• 15 year rotation

o Yield class 8 = 120 tonnes per ha or 48 tonnes per acre

o Assume 40-48 per tonnes acre

If we then convert these yields to processed firewood each tonne of tonne of cut wood will

provide approximately 2.5m3 of loose logs:

• 1m3 of wood (standing or recently felled) comprises about 50% water (by total weight)

o = approx. 1 tonne of unseasoned/fresh/wet wood

� = approx. 0.72 tonnes of seasoned wood (30% water by total weight)

� = approx. 3m3 of loose wood chip (yielding 2,500 kWh of heat energy)

� = approx. 1.4m3 of stacked firewood logs or 2.5m3 of loose logs7

If we therefore multiply the yield per acre (40-80 tonnes) by 0.72 (i.e. 720 kg of seasoned

wood per tonne of felled timber) we reduce the initial yield to 29-58 tonnes. If we then

assume that 720 kg of seasoned wood will produce around 2.5m3 of loose logs then our 29-58

tonnes per acre will produce around 73 to 145 cubic metres.

In firewood terms this yield is therefore worth between £7,300 and £14,500 per acre

(assuming an average of £100 per cubic metre is earned), significantly more than the income

earned from the more normal standing sale and ‘pay to cut’ management models.

Of course harvesting would need to be rotated around each wood to avoid over-extraction in a

single wood. Due to the small areas involved it may not be possible to generate the same

level of income year-on-year. However, over a three- to five-year period the average annual

income should in theory be high enough to cover the input costs.

Capturing this value is the key to successful woodland management (in financial terms) and a

woodland owner would need to implement various activities to make this happen, for example:

• The woodland owner takes ‘control’ of the material that is harvested (even though a

contractor could still be procured to undertake the felling and extraction at a day rate of

between £100-200).

• Value is added to the felled material via seasoning and processing into firewood (or

fencing materials if the wood is of sufficient quality).

• Firewood processing equipment is purchased (or hired) by the woodland owner and

‘rotated’ around different woodlands according to the time of year and the availability of

seasoned wood.

• Processing machinery could be loaned or hired to volunteers who want to undertake

woodland management. To achieve this training and insurance would be required. We

would recommend that a local contractor is hired to oversee processing activity

(alternatively a local contractor with a firewood processor is hired/funded).

• Volunteers (and local residents affected by the harvesting) can be offered processed

firewood at a discounted price. The majority of the processed firewood should be

marketed at full price.

7 In reverse 1m3 of stacked logs = about 0.7m3 of solid wood and 1m3 of loose logs = about 0.4m3 of solid wood.


Page 31

• Whilst wood chip is worth less than firewood (in retail terms) the managers of Horish and

Cuckoo Woods also have the option to chip felled material for use in biomass boilers. A

contract chipper could be hired (approximately £500-600 per day). Around 60/70 tonnes

can be chipped per day (with felled material ideally 2-3 m lengths). A tonne of wood

chip yields around 3,500 kWh. In oil terms this is equivalent to 339 litres8 or £203

(assuming .60p/litre and 5.7p/kWh).

In summary it is clear that the economics of felled timber can be attractive providing that the

woodland owner effectively ‘captures’ all of the value. This contrasts the prevailing model

used by many woodland owners whereby the majority of the value is lost via the use of

external contractors.

We anticipate, therefore, that the economics of small woodlands can be improved significantly

if more value of added to the harvested timber. This will require investment, but over the

duration of a three or five-year plan the returns should be positive.

5.6. Utilisation of Renewable Heat Incentive

Changes in the woodfuel market and the introduction of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)

whereby financial incentives are offered to those who install biomass boilers are introduced in

section 4.1. Detling Parish Council owns a village hall and would be eligible to receive RHI

payments if a biomass boiler was installed. Wood chip sourced from Horish Wood could be

used to fuel the boiler.

5.6.1. Savings made by conversion to wood chip boiler and RHI

Detling Village Hall is currently heated by a gas central heating system that in 2011 used

42,500 kWh of gas. Based on average gas prices of 4.5p per kWh the cost of heating the hall

can be approximated as £1,900 per annum.

RHI payments are calculated based upon a combination of boiler size, heating hours and the

amount of fuel used. Using an RHI calculator which estimates the costs and savings resulting

from the uptake of RHI it is estimated that the average RHI payment over the twenty years of

payments would be approximately £3,000 per annum. Added to this are the savings by no

longer paying for gas to heat the hall but these are partially offset by the cost of purchasing

woodchip.

8 Assuming 10.31 kWh per litre.


Page 32

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Boiler Size (kW) 25 25 25

35,000 42,500 45,000

Displaced fossil fuel gas gas gas

price per kWh (p) 4.5 4.5 4.5

Annual heat requirement (kWh/year) 35,000 42,500 45,000

RHI Size Category (S/M/L) S S S

Annual heating hours 1,400 1,700 1,800

Annual RHI Income (£/year) £ 2,872 £ 3,037 £ 3,092

Woodfuel Price (£/t) £ 80 £ 80 £ 80

Woodfuel Moisture content (%wb) 30% 30% 30%

Annual Woodfuel Demand (t/year) 10 12 13

Annual Woodfuel Cost (£/year) £ 799 £ 970 £ 1,027

Net Annual Revenue (RHI-fuel cost in £/year) £ 2,074 £ 2,068 £ 2,066

Annual fossil fuel cost saved (£/year) £ 1,575 £ 1,913 £ 2,025

Total Annual Savings (£/year) £ 3,649 £ 3,980 £ 4,091

Annual heat requirement (kWh/year)

OR Last annual heating bill

Table 4: Example RHI claculations for 25kW wood chip boiler and three heat load

scenarios

The RHI calculator estimates that around 12 tonnes of woodchip would be required which can

be purchased for approximately £1,000 (or around £500 if self-supplied). Hence, a saving of

almost £4,000 per annum could be made by converting to a woodchip boiler and utilising RHI

payments.

Based on an estimated installation cost of £20,000 the payback on a 25 kW boiler would be

around five years. The 20 year duration of the RHI subsidy would provide a firm basis for

investment and would provide a number of environmental benefits. Crucially it would help

underpin the management of Horish Wood. As an alternative to wood chip a log boiler could

also be considered9.

When contractors were spoken to regarding their interest in woodlands a supplementary

question was asked regarding their willingness to work on a day rate to cut wood and produce

chip. Most of the contractors are prepared to work on a day rate which has the potential to

reduce the cost of woodchip. Any woodchip cut from Horish Wood will need to be stored until

the moisture content is low enough to be used in the boiler.

9 For more information on woodfuel and biomass boilers see www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk


Page 33

Figure 10: RHI payment curve for a 25 kW wood chip boiler and 42,500 kWh/pa heat load


Page 34

6. Summary of management options and recommended actions

The most viable options for managing Horish and Cuckoo Woods based on research

undertaken for this report are as follows:

Cuckoo Wood:

• Use of contractors to cut wood that is then sold at the roadside or delivered to fencing

companies or woodchip providers. Use standing sales of woodland compartments to

rapidly introduce active management.

o Consider developing firewood trial as part of main contractor work.

• Use Woodland Improvement Grants to support glade creation and rides. Discuss options

with Forestry Commission and/or woodland agent (Mid Kent Downs Countryside

Partnership).

• Management committee to decide whether a contractor is to be asked to manage the

woodland and draw up a draft contract with their preferred contractor. Coppicing to

commence autumn/winter 2013/14.

• Actively approach potential volunteers to start implementing the management plan for

the wood. This should focus on non-coppice work in the management plan.

• Approach Maidstone Borough Council to push for the Local Nature Reserve designation of

Cuckoo Wood and apply for funding to support uneconomic management of the woodland

and to develop a volunteer group.

Horish Wood:

• Use of contractors to cut wood that is then sold at the roadside or delivered to fencing

companies or woodchip providers. Use standing sales of woodland compartments to

rapidly introduce active management.

o Use contractors to cut wood and process into woodchip for a biomass boiler in

the village hall whilst selling the surplus as either woodchip or logwood.

o Consider developing firewood trial as part of main contractor work.

• Use Woodland Improvement Grants to support uneconomic coppice in compartment 3,

glade creation and ride management.

• Management committee to decide whether a contractor is to be asked to manage the

woodland and draw up a draft contract with their preferred contractor. Coppicing can

start in autumn/winter 2013/14 in compartment 4c.

• Examine the viability of installing a biomass boiler in the village hall and the potential for

utilising timber from Horish Wood to fuel the boiler. A more in depth report and

feasibility study can be obtained by contacting the Woodfuel Pathfinder Development

Manager, Matthew Morris10.

• Work with existing volunteers to help implement the management plan and develop

additional volunteering opportunities with local wildlife based organisations.

• Apply for grant funding to develop community engagement activities for the local

community.

10 [email protected] , 01303 815 171.


Page 35

Appendix 1: Site Photography (Horish Wood)

Recent mixed broadleaf planting

Informal path and oak standards Ephemeral pond

Access and grassland areas


Page 36

Hazel coppice

(compartment 3d)

Mixed broadleaf

(compartment 3a)

Hornbeam coppice

(compartment 4a)


Page 37

Appendix 2: Site Photography (Cuckoo Wood)

Opposite-leaved golden saxifrage

Footpath and recent coppice Oak standard

Unknown heritage structure


Page 38

Tennyson’s Brook

Alder dominated stream

floodplain

Wood anemone


Page 39

Appendix 3: Contractor Telephone Interview Prompt Sheet

1. The woodland information sent to you concerns woodlands that are currently

undermanaged. Would you be interested in helping to get these woodlands back into

management and under what circumstances?

Y/N:

Standing Sale: (2)

Pay to cut: (5)

Not interested: (8)

2. How much of the woodland resource would you be interested in and why?

3. Would you prefer to deal with a woodland agent or directly with the woodland owner

and why?

4. How would you feel about being asked to work to a management plan that is geared

towards biodiversity which would require a small percentage of wood to be left as

deadwood as well as glades and rides?

5. How much would you be prepared to pay for the woodland? Would you be prepared

to work uneconomic coppice if Woodland Grant Scheme funding was available to

supplement your income?

Y/N (11)

6. Would this apply to all of the woodland or just some? Expand on answer

7. How much would you charge per acre (range)? Would you take the timber as well?

8. There is probably no money to support paying to cut. Do you have any ideas to help

overcome this? What would need to change? (11)

9. What are the reasons you aren’t interested?

10. What would need to change to make you interested? To include (agent involved –

multi annual contracts – below market sales – infrastructure improvements)

11. If a woodfuel project was instigated would you be prepared to cut timber for a day

rate? If yes, roughly how much.

Y/N

Any other comments

Date post:	17-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	voquynh
View:	218 times
Download:	3 times

Management Options for Small Woodlands in Maidstone · PDF fileTennyson’s Brook in...

Documents