Big areas of peat in the UK have been burned, drained and mown for a very long perioid for pasture or shooting. That is a perfect way of destroying peat. There are plenty of projects to reverse that so peat can fulfil its sequestration potential.

No argument about upland forests. What's the problem? Both are valuable, including peat plant communities.

Sure, but it also doesn't mean that a healthy flora of low-rise plants on deep peat isn't a healthy and vibrant ecology.

Inevitably, if we're trying to restore a healthy ecology on to land where it doesn't currently thrive, there usually needs to be some degree of intervention. Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam anyone?

Obviously. But that doesn't mean the whole country was covered by dense tree coverage.

But why are they "superior" to the healthy plant ecology that will grow on peat if it isn't burned, mown or drained - sphagnum, cotton grass etc., that is extremely good at carbon sequestration?

And when it isn't burned, drained or mown, peat can support a fine ecology of sphagnum, cotton grass etc., etc.. It's far from true that the entire country was covered in dense forests before humans interfered.

Peat is wonderful stuff and can support an excellent native ecology. Healthy peat is also extemely good at sequestering carbon.
Meanwhile there are always those who want to plant commercial forestry on it, whatever the implications.

Sheep may well be part of the problem, but trees are only a solution on mineral soils. On deep peat you need appropriate vegetation.

It says the so-called "presumption in favour of sustainable development" has sidelined the environment and needs to be changed. Nature should not be a scapegoat for building industry failures.