A dispute over plans to turn land on the English-Scottish border into commercial forestry has intensified scrutiny of woodland investment, tax reliefs, biodiversity protection, and the role of private capital in natural assets.
Gresham House, the London-based alternative asset manager, bought the Todrig site in the Scottish Borders for £12m in 2022. The land covers about 580 hectares and includes heath moorland, grassland, and habitats associated with the northern brown argus butterfly.
Plans to plant commercial trees at Todrig have been halted for now after a legal challenge forced further checks by the local environmental regulator. The presence of the northern brown argus, a vulnerable species, has made the site a focal point in a wider debate over whether commercial forestry investment is always compatible with biodiversity goals.
Camilla Fowler, chair of the Lilliesleaf, Ashkirk and Midlem community council, said: “No one wants this. This kind of forestry scars the landscape and replaces it with monocultural, dark trees that harms our biodiversity.”
The dispute reflects growing interest in woodland as an investment class. Commercial forestry can generate returns from timber, land value appreciation, carbon-linked demand, and tax treatment. Depending on structure and use, woodland may qualify for business property relief after two years of ownership. Profits from growing timber can also benefit from favourable treatment under income, corporation, and capital gains tax rules.
Those incentives have helped attract wealthy families, private investors, and institutions into forestry. Industry calculations cited by the Guardian suggest woodland values have roughly doubled over the past decade, outperforming some other physical assets such as commercial property.
The business case rests on a combination of timber demand, land appreciation, and long-term scarcity. Commercial plantations, often including Sitka spruce, can grow timber at scale, supply domestic construction and packaging markets, and contribute to carbon sequestration. Supporters argue that the UK needs more productive forestry because it imports significant volumes of timber and has ambitious tree-planting targets.
Campaigners argue that tax incentives and grant regimes can push land prices beyond agricultural value, encouraging investors to acquire complex landscapes and convert them into uniform plantations. They say the carbon and timber benefits are not enough if biodiverse grasslands, habitats, and local land use are damaged in the process.
David Lintott, a barrister who has led the legal campaign against the forestry plan at Todrig through Restore Nature, said: “There is an enormous difference between Sitka spruce trees and native woodland, and other types of habitats such as meadows and calcareous grassland in terms of the wildlife they support.”
Nature-based investment is increasingly presented as part of the solution to climate change, biodiversity loss, and rural economic development. Asset managers, carbon developers, and landowners are seeking returns from forestry, peatland restoration, biodiversity credits, and natural capital strategies. Yet carbon capture, timber yield, biodiversity, local employment, and community control do not always point in the same direction.
Gresham House has become one of the most visible private-sector investors in UK forestry and natural capital. Campaigners say funds managed by the group collectively control significant areas of land, particularly in Scotland. The company has disputed claims that it is one of the largest private landowners, arguing that the land is ultimately owned by its investors.
The asset manager has said ecological surveys and existing biodiversity have informed the Todrig design, with sensitive areas removed to create a multi-species mosaic. It has also said the scheme would deliver wider benefits, including carbon sequestration, local employment, sustainable timber production, reduced reliance on imported commodities, and improved public access.
The company said the current design includes a commitment to retain about 40% of the site as open ground, primarily to support biodiversity and habitat creation. It has also said planting, felling, and management plans will be made publicly available once operational.
The Todrig case illustrates a governance problem in natural capital markets. The language of ESG can obscure the fact that different environmental objectives compete for land. A plantation that scores well on timber production and carbon may perform poorly on habitat diversity. A rewilding project may support biodiversity but generate weaker commercial cashflow. A locally managed landscape may deliver social value but struggle to match institutional return expectations.
That makes due diligence harder for investors and companies making sustainability claims. Natural capital assets require long time horizons, complex ecological assessment, and clear community engagement. Without that, projects risk being seen as tax-driven land accumulation wrapped in environmental language.
The tax dimension adds another layer. Rachel Reeves has already tightened some agricultural and business property reliefs, but woodland continues to attract interest as an estate-planning tool. Advisers say forestry can still be attractive for inheritance tax planning where qualifying conditions are met, even after wider relief changes.
The policy challenge is to encourage tree planting and domestic timber supply without rewarding ecological simplification or speculative land inflation. Sharper distinctions may be needed between productive forestry, native woodland, carbon projects, biodiversity restoration, and tax planning.
Natural capital is becoming a contested asset class where financial structure, tax treatment, local consent, and ecological evidence will be tested together.
You must be logged in to post a comment.