Can you have trees without foresters?

It's sometimes interesting how "active" (or do I mean hyperactive?) foresters can be. There is a mindset which some writers have called the "imperialistic" approach to nature (Peterken, 1996). A plan has been drawn up and the hand of "man" will impose order on nature. The alternative approach can be called "arcadian" - "let's leave this to nature", or "what is nature doing here, do we really need to interfere?"

On the other side of the road from this site money and effort has been spent planting conifers which may damage and confine a broadleaved feature. 

It seems that just on this side of the forest road "The Plan" says "Here There Shall be Broadleaves". Let's be clear, this is certainly the right strategy, we are inside or just on the edge of the "Broadleaved Woodland Core Networks" zone.

As far as I could tell, inside the tree shelters are planted ash trees. Now these shelters are pretty expensive, their costs are debateable even where you really need to plant trees. But do you here?

You will note that the area is pretty small and surrounded by mature broadleaved trees. These are shedding seed into the area below and around. Doing absolutely nothing is likely to result in a grassy brambly patch for a few years through which birch, oak (and I saw some Holly) have already started regenerating. 

Admitedly I saw no Ash. If you really thought Ash should be part of the mix you would need to plant some. 

Maybe three?