Town becomes first in Britain to give trees rights as it says plants should be able to ‘flourish’
Lewes Town Council in East Sussex has become the first in England to formally recognise the rights of trees, passing a motion stating that trees have the right to "flourish" and maintain their natural life cycles. The council, run by a Green and Labour coalition, agreed the measure on 10 September, covering woodlands, forests, hedgerows and individual trees. While the motion carries no legal force, campaigners hope it will strengthen protections against felling, support tree preservation orders and shape future planning decisions, potentially inspiring other towns to join Britain's growing "rights of nature" movement.
Local group Friends of Lewes said the move aims to boost tree canopy cover by 30% and help combat flooding and rising summer temperatures, with councillor Dinah Morgan citing recent heatwaves as a reminder that trees act as vital "partners" rather than resources to exploit. A University of Sussex law academic described the motion as a way to strengthen both legal protection and public attitudes towards nature. The initiative follows similar but smaller-scale action, including Rother District Council's 2024 motion protecting a single yew tree, and comes amid heightened public concern over tree destruction following high-profile cases such as the 2023 felling of the Sycamore Gap tree and the loss of the 500-year-old Enfield Oak.
- Lewes becomes first English town to grant trees legal-style "rights"
- Motion is symbolic, but may guide planning and preservation decisions
- Follows public anger over Sycamore Gap and Enfield Oak tree fellings
New here? Start with this
Lewes, a town in East Sussex, has a town council now controlled by a coalition of the Green Party and Labour. On 10 September it passed a motion recognising that trees have a right to "flourish", covering woodlands, forests, hedgerows and individual trees across the area, making it the first place in England to adopt such a measure.
The motion has no legal force, but supporters, including the local group Friends of Lewes, hope it will influence planning decisions, support existing tree protection orders and act as a symbolic deterrent against felling. It fits into a wider "rights of nature" movement, which argues that natural features such as trees, rivers or ecosystems should be granted formal recognition similar to legal rights, rather than being treated only as property or resources.
The move follows growing public concern in Britain about the loss of significant trees, notably the 2023 felling of the Sycamore Gap tree and the destruction of the centuries-old Enfield Oak, as well as an earlier, narrower step by Rother District Council to protect a single yew tree in 2024.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates argue that granting trees symbolic rights reflects a growing recognition that natural systems have intrinsic value beyond their utility to people, and that formally naming trees as partners rather than resources can meaningfully shift planning decisions, strengthen the case for tree preservation orders, and build public support for canopy growth that mitigates flooding and heat. They point to high-profile losses such as the Sycamore Gap and the Enfield Oak as evidence that existing protections are too weak, and see this as a proportionate, low-cost step – carrying no legal force but signalling values – that other councils and eventually national law might build upon.
The case against
Sceptics of the measure worry that a motion with no legal force risks being largely symbolic, potentially raising public expectations of protection that the council cannot actually deliver, while diverting attention from more concrete and enforceable planning reforms or funding for tree preservation. Others are uneasy in principle about extending the language of rights to non-sentient organisms, arguing this could complicate property rights, farming, development and land management decisions, or set a precedent that is difficult to apply consistently, and would prefer that environmental protection be pursued through established legal and scientific frameworks rather than symbolic declarations.