Shimrod, I think we both share the desire to conserve what is left of our ancient woodland but 'conservation' throughout the 20thC has consisted of the destruction of many sites in the interests of housing and road building (and those commercial plantations)

e.g.one such application at random

The Secretary of State notes that the application site is allocated for a development of 200 houses in the adopted Local Plan.
Although the current proposals are some 10% in excess of this, the Secretary of State accepts that the increase would accord with Government policy concerning the efficient use of land. He agrees with the Inspector (IR 14.20) that the proposals are significant in terms of the implementation of other policies and objectives of the adopted Local Plan. So far as compliance with national policy is concerned, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusions regarding compliance with PPGs 9 and 15.
HE RECOGNISES THAT THERE WILL BE SOME ADVERSE EFFECTS, BOTH IN RELATION TO THE ANCIENT WOODLAND AND AS REGARDS THE SETTING OF THE LISTED BUILDINGS, BUT HE SHARES THE INSPECTOR'S VIEW (IR 14.15-14.18) THAT THE HARM WOULD BE OUTWEIGHED BY THE BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST RESULTING FROM THE DEVELOPMENT'

(my caps)

This is NOT either keeping 'from harm or loss' and has been repeated many times all over the country

So long as 'replacenemt' planting for the future is carried out with care and concern for the existing environment I personally believe it is necessary to preserve what we still have left but also to give our childrens children a legacy that is more than just a parking lot.