....It is common for folk to think trees have always been there and never been cut.
I agree. This was planted recently...All conifers, same height, reached maturity 30 ish years ago, now being cut and not replaced. However, there are some pretty huge stumps in between the rows that were too big to pull out.
I once cut a coppice and the old chap who had lived in the house adjoining the wood for 55 years swore it had never been cut but every tree we counted had rings showing the coppice had been clear felled 45 years ago. If you really want to know dig out some old photos of the place 50 years ago, my guess is there won't be many trees but I may be wrong. The area you are looking at may have been wooded all your life (don't know how old you are)
47, been in area about 35 of those.
but that is quite a short spell in terms of the habitat.
Are you saying that you don't believe there is valuable remnant heathland surviving below those trees? or that you feel any woodland is inherently more valuable than other habitats?
I do preffer forests to heathland. However, I do believe trees are better for the environment than heathland, and also, I know that if its got cattle on it, but its not very fertile, its much easier to get planning permission for it than a forest full of trees. Cynical, I know.