Month: November 2024

“We intend to protect these trees in any way we can”

– Cllr Martin Smart, Chair of the Cambridge City Council Planning Committee, 6th November 2024

A Third Victory!

Tree image overlain with text as follows: ALL TREES NOW SAFE! 24/0413/TTPO - refused on 6/11/2024

On 6th November, the Cambridge City Council Planning Committee voted to protect St Matthew’s Piece trees. This vote prevented the cutting of a deep trench that would have eliminated a large area of roots vital to these historic trees.

This was a stunning victory for our trees, drawing heavily on the strong objections from Friends of St Matthew’s Piece Supporters.

Fence with celebratory 'saved' notices

Previous decisions prevented first the severe pruning (2022) and then the felling (2023) of three of the four trees affected by the 2024 application. 

For the third time in three years, the Committee rejected the Case Officer’s recommendation to support a planning application that would have harmed these trees.  All three applications had been submitted by the insurance company for a new-build 1997 HMO property on Sturton Street, opposite the 1898 trees.

During the 6th November Planning meeting, three public speakers presented arguments against the application: Ben Cijffers and Katherine Holland, both with expertise on trees; and Valerie Neal a local resident.

They emphasised that the root loss caused by the proposed trench would increase the trees’ vulnerability to drought and wind. The trench would significantly increase the risk to the St Matthew’s Piece trees of disease, and threaten their long-term survival.

The 1997 house was noted to have extra deep concrete foundations – unlike its Victorian neighbours. This would therefore be the last – not the first and only one – to display signs of subsidence, if this had occurred at all during the 5 years since “slight cracks” were reported (in 2019). A Site Visit by the Planning Committee on 28th October 2024 observed that these “slight cracks” had not deteriorated. Nor were there new cracks typical of subsidence.

Planning decisions rest on balanced judgements, public speakers noted. While the trench would certainly damage irreplaceable trees, this would be for the sake of  “the fanciful elimination of unevidenced nuisance”. There was therefore no valid basis for approval of the application.

For the applicant, their Agent (John Heuch) stressed his experience of 1000+ subsidence cases and 300+ tree barriers, but did not address the points raised by the Public speakers.

Three Ward Councillors spoke powerfully on different aspects of the huge public amenity value of all the protected trees on St Matthew’s Piece.

  • Abbey Cllr Elliot Tong  focused on the trees’ importance in tackling the consequences of climate change and biodiversity crises;
  • Petersfield Cllr Richard Robertson examined the tree’s roles in carbon & pollution capture, and in reducing the Urban Heat Island Effect, as well as their very high value, as formally calculated by the Council;
  • Petersfield Cllr Mike Davey, Leader of the Council, stressed the enormous value of these Conservation Area trees – individually and as a group – for the mental and physical health of local residents of all ages. He highlighted the lack of input from Building Control, and the importance of factoring possible financial consequences to the Council of any decision.

All nine Planning Committee members attended the whole of the intensive 2.5 hour session, thoroughly interrogating the issues. The Chair’s ‘summing-up’, before the voting, included:

We’ve got a recommendation which is to dig a trench [and] we’ve also got on the table the consideration of how much these things are going to cost … We are being encouraged as a Committee to think about that cost both in terms of our Council and for all Councils in the UK and the cost of claims like this… The number one thing in my mind is the trees. They are the most important thing here. And it seems to me that, in order to protect the trees completely, then we would want not to dig a trench.

Cllr Martin Smart, Chair of the Cambridge City Council Planning Committee

The final decision, to refuse permission for the trench, included a set of formal reasons that were carefully worded by Planning Committee members, together with the senior Planning Officer. 

The Chair added, at 3h 16 minutes into the online recording of the meeting

The decision by this committee… does not mean that we are accepting liability for the cost of underpinning said property with concrete. I believe that’s to be decided in the future… We as a Council and Committee, the Planning Authority, have protected these trees… And I believe that the Council and residents will continue to do that. So I hope the applicant is listening to that. And we intend to protect these trees in any way we can, going forward.

Tree with celebratory 'saved' notices

The cherished Plane trees of St Matthews Piece were fiercely defended – and remain preserved and protected.

Flowere image overlain with text as follows: So let's Celebrate! Thank you for your support, from the Friends of St Matthew's Piece

Friends of St Matthew’s Piece Supporters said:

 Great team effort. Cambridge at its best!

Wendy Blythe, Chair of The Federation of Cambridge Residents’ Associations

What fantastic news – an amazing job saving these trees for the community, so thank you all.

Lesley T

Huge congratulations to everyone for this decision, backed by so much hard work and dedication.

Nicky Glegg

This applicant’s Four Planning Applications in three years, concerning 193 Sturton Street:

  • 22/0271/TTPO – heavy prune – REFUSED 6 July 2022
  • 23/0119/TTPO – chop down – REFUSED 1 November 2023
  • 24/0440/TTCA – trench? – WITHDRAWN 21 May 2024
  • 24/0413/TTPO – trench/root barrier – REFUSED 6 November 2024

Earlier Mill Road Bridges blogposts on the three trees:

See also Delight as councillors vote to protect St Matthew’s Piece trees in Cambridge – Paul Brackley, Cambridge Independent, 15th November 2024

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR HELP From Friends of St Matthew’s Piece

If you would like to join Friends of St Matthew’s Piece or assist in any of the issues raised in this blogpost, kindly hosted by Mill Road Bridges, please email Friends of St Matthew’s Piece.

The Case for Protecting Fenner’s Cricket and Sports Ground

Another guest blogpost from Protect Fenner’s Action Group.

Hughes Hall has recently bought two plots of ground on Fenner’s from Cambridge University Cricket and Athletics Club Ltd (CUCAC Ltd), and has informed local residents of its plans to build new student accommodation on green Protected Open Space adjacent to the college and near the cricket pitch.

photo as caption
Recent cricket match on Fenner’s,
looking towards Covent Garden and the land Hughes Hall has purchased for development
(photo: Lionel Sheffield)

The Protect Fenner’s Action Group:

  1. Opposes Hughes Hall plans to build on recently purchased green Protected Open Space on Fenner’s Cricket Ground.  Fenner’s is highly rated by the city council for its recreational, environmental and heritage value for the whole city.
  2. Will fight to ensure that Fenner’s Protected Open Space status remains intact so that land never built on before is kept for recreation, and a damaging precedent for the city is averted.
  3. Objects to the sale of such land for building, and will urge the Planning Authority not to support building on it.
  4. Objects to Hughes Hall attempts to enclose this historic cricket and sports ground within the college campus, to use for its private benefit what by tradition has been a community asset with open public access.
  5. Objects to the closure of public access paths and will campaign to reinstate access to this historic recreation space.
  6. Urges Hughes Hall to find alternatives, respecting local, national and university policies which prioritise the preservation of scarce green spaces for climate resilience and community well-being.

Cambridge’s Petersfield Ward lies in the bottom 20% nationally of the ‘Environment Domain’ in the government’s Index of Multiple Deprivation. Indeed, Petersfield Ward has only one public park – St Matthew’s Piece – vs 56 official parks in Cambridge’s other 13 wards.

Map of Protected Open Spaces in Petersfield Ward

Context

The President of Hughes Hall said in a recent communication that “Hughes is the only Cambridge college with a cricket pitch in the middle of it, and that is one of the things that makes our college attractive.” The college website states that the college campus surrounds the cricket ground.

In fact, Fenner’s and Hughes Hall are, and always have been, separate entities, and although the President sees the proximity of Fenner’s as an asset for the college, its enclosure within the expanding college campus would be a significant loss to the wider, non-collegiate community.

At a time when open green spaces and sports grounds are increasingly under pressure in urban communities, especially in Cambridge, we will make the case to reinstate public recreational access.

image as caption
Hughes Hall diagram of land purchased on Fenner’s for building student accommodation: proposal shown to residents, 30 November 2023

This latest purchase is part of Hughes Hall’s plan to increase and extend its estate by buying and building on land around the cricket pitch. We think that Hughes Hall actions and proposals are unneighbourly, environmentally aggressive; they represent an unacceptable loss to the wider community, and the closure of public access took place without sufficient public scrutiny.

The Protect Fenner’s Action Group‘s Supporting Arguments:

  1. Although the President of the college says that their plans will have no impact on cricket at Fenner’s, this claim is strongly contested within the cricketing community and concerns are frequently raised about the diminishing number of games now played there. Steve James, Hughes Hall alumnus and former England Test cricketer, disagrees with Hughes Hall, and told The Times, “I do think it is wrong and a great shame.”
  2. Fenner’s is owned by a private limited company, Cambridge University Cricket and Athletics Company (CUCAC Ltd). This company has sold land around the pitch to Hughes Hall, knowing that the college wants to build on it.
  3. While not planning to build on the cricket pitch itself, the President of Hughes Hall informed neighbours last year of the college proposals to build up to 100 student rooms near the cricket pitch on part of the outfield adjacent to the college – open grassland, that the college was purchasing on Fenner’s. He recently reported that the college has also bought the cricket ground car park.
  4. This is not just “private land” as described by Hughes Hall, but part of an historic site for the city and English cricket, with an exceptional status for protection. Building on this green open space would run contrary to the current Local Planning Authority, Cambridge City Council, designation of the whole of Fenner’s – on and around the pitch – as Protected Open Space.
  5. According to the local authority Local Plan 2018 it is irrelevant to Protected Open Space status whether the land is privately or publicly owned. What matters is the assessment of its recreational and environmental value to the city as a whole. Fenner’s is rated among Cambridge’s top ten Protected Open Spaces.
  6. The cricket ground is within the New Town-Glisson Road Conservation Area, and in 2011 was designated by Cambridge City Council as a significant open space and recreational asset. Fenner’s amounts to 30% of the open green space in the whole of Petersfield ward, which is a densely urban part of the city. See Open Space and Recreation Strategy, Cambridge City Council, October 2011, in particular Section 1.0 Introduction (pp 4-8); maps of Market and Petersfield Wards (pp 51, 57 respectively); Section 4.29 Petersfield Ward Profile pp 55-56.
  7. Fenner’s has been a cricket/sports ground since 1848, when it was rented and prepared for town and gown sports by Francis (Frank) Fenner. The freehold was bought by the University Cricket and Athletics Club from Caius College in 1894, by which point the ground had a defined curtilage. Hughes Hall was developed on a separate, adjacent plot of ground on the north east side of Fenner’s boundary – the first building dating to 1895.
  8. Fenner’s backs onto Covent Garden (which pre-dates the cricket ground, and is part of the Mill Road Conservation Area), and many of the Covent Garden properties face onto the open ground. The surrounding roads in the New Town-Glisson Road Conservation Area were built around it, and the ground is therefore an integral part of the jigsaw of this urban landscape and its heritage.
  9. Fenner’s is made up of the pitch itself and the surrounding outfield, which now includes the Cambridge University Cricket School. The outfield is normally used for cricket-related and other sporting/recreational activities. It has been the home of first class national and international cricket since its foundation, and a quality sports field which many local clubs and schools enjoyed the use of.  Sadly, this has diminished over recent years, with significantly fewer matches and apparent less investment in the pitch and facilities.
  10. Although private (ie owned by CUCAC Ltd), until recently Fenner’s was open to public access with ungated pathways from Mortimer and Gresham Roads. They were used by private individuals enjoying the green open space at different times of day, and sports spectators during matches.
  11. Over the last 24 years, however, Hughes Hall has progressively bought land from CUCAC Ltd., gated off public access to Fenner’s without community consultation, and built substantial blocks around the ground. These include the Fenner’s Building (2000) and Gresham Court (2014).
  12. The most recent purchase involves two further plots of ground on Fenner’s – green open space on the north east side, adjacent to the college, and Fenner’s car park. These purchases significantly increase the encirclement of the cricket pitch, and if college plans are approved it will be the first time building is allowed on Fenner’s land designated as Protected Open Space.
  13. While Hughes Hall students have right of access to Fenner’s, to walk around the pitch from the college to their accommodation in Gresham Court, the ground is no longer open and accessible to the public, and local clubs and schools are rarely seen.
  14. We think that building on open green space and closing off public access is to the detriment of the wider community, and that it has happened without sufficient public scrutiny.
  15. The campaign group strongly objects to the college enclosing what has been enjoyed by the public for nearly 200 years, and formally designated as a recreation asset within a city ward. The building on precious green open space at a time when it is an increasingly scarce and valued resource within the city, would be an irreversible set back. If Protected Open Space status can be overturned at Fenner’s when Hughes Hall’s priority is accommodation rather than an imperative educational need, then a damaging precedent will be set for Cambridge.
  16. The City Council acknowledges that these green spaces are ‘fragile, finite and irreplaceable’ (Open Space and Recreation Strategy, 2011, p 4 paragraph 1.2). Cambridge University also states that it will discourage piecemeal development on green spaces within the city in its Strategic Framework for the Estate (2016), and has worked with the City Council and South Cambridgeshire to develop a new centre called Eddington in North West Cambridge.
  17. Hughes Hall has expanded its student body nearly 4-fold since 2000, from c.270 to 900 + students. This expansion inevitably creates pressure on resources but if the college is serious about reducing carbon emissions, building on Fenner’s should not be an option. There are other choices. Eddington is being developed to cater for university and college future needs, and is very close to many of the teaching and research departments. Alternatively older buildings can be efficiently retrofitted, and there are substantial brownfield sites within the city if the college wants to build new accommodation closer to its core campus.
  18. Although the President of Hughes Hall says that there are no suitable local brownfield sites, it is worth noting that over the last 25 years Anglia Ruskin University (very close to Hughes Hall) has acquired and successfully developed local brownfield sites that could also have been available to Hughes Hall.  Hughes Hall has perhaps not been looking at these sites because it has had its eyes on acquiring land around Fenner’s cricket pitch.
  19. We understand the college wishes to expand, but think that buying to build on more land on Fenner’s is not the right place or approach; that it should pursue alternative options, which would sit more comfortably with its own climate engagement initiatives and the City Council’s policy to be net carbon zero by 2030.
  20. CUCAC Ltd has said that it has sold land around the pitch because Fenner’s is an expensive ground to run. We think that selling the outfield piece by piece is an unsustainable business strategy, and that CUCAC should seek funding elsewhere, perhaps facilitated by a wider use of the sports field.

And don’t forget the Protect Fenner’s Action Group Petition. Please read the details and sign. You can add a comment after you’ve signed and verified your signature by email.

For balance, readers are welcome to view Hughes Hall’s stated position: Hughes Hall land purchase and development (11/10/2024)

Protect Fenner’s Action Group believe that our green and open spaces are of fundamental importance to our city’s character, ecology, and our own wellbeing.  We must support all efforts to preserve them in the face of the constant drive to build and develop.

Please email protectfennersactiongroup@gmail.com to support our local campaign to save Fenner’s and green spaces in Cambridge for future generations. We will let you know when further details, including architects’ plans, are published.

See also these blogposts on behalf of Fenner’s Action Group

Protect Fenner’s Action Group in the local and national press

St Matthew’s Piece Trees – To The Barricades! (Barriers)

July’s Planning Meeting – see Not ANOTHER One! 17 June 2024 – deferred a decision on planning application 24/0413/TTPO’s proposed trench/root barrier along Sturton Street, very near St Matthew’s Piece trees, until after a Site Visit by the Planning Committee.

image as caption
One of the trees, and nearby railings, adorned with protest notices

Developments since then

  1. A new image for planning application 24/0413/TTPO suggests a root barrier might be placed somewhat closer to 193 Sturton Sreet. But this new image also shows this barrier running not for 30 meters (as before) but all the way between Young Street and Petworth Street. If allowed, this much longer barrier would interfere with the vital ‘Root Protection Areas’ of even more trees along Sturton Street.
  2. Despite pouring rain, 50+ local residents attended a Ribbon-tying Event at 11–noon on October 19th, in support of St Matthew’s Piece’s precious trees. See Residents fight fresh threat to ‘precious’ 125-year-old trees in centre of Cambridge [Mike Scialom , Cambridge Independent, 25th October 2024].
  3. The Planning Committee’s planned Site Visit took place in the afternoon of October 28th.
  4. By the morning of October 28th, 24/0413/TTPO was already on the Planning Committee’s Agenda for Wednesday November 6th at 10am. It’s the first substantive item of business.

Amputating a tree’s roots, or intrusion into a tree’s vital Root Protection Area, both risk that tree’s viability. If St Matthew’s Piece’s 126-year-old, irreplaceable, Conservation Area Plane Trees are not fully protected – then no tree in Cambridge can be safe. As many as seven of these magnificent Plane Trees along Sturton Street could be at risk from planning application 24/0413/TTPO.

ARE 7 TREES NOW AT RISK? 24/0413/TTPO - decision due 6/11/2024

How you can help

If possible, please show your support by attending the Planning Committee, at 10 am on Wednesday November 6th. A strong turnout will ensure that every member of the Planning Committee is aware of the strength of feeling to protect our trees, and the applicant will understand that resistance to any proposal which endangers our trees will never weaken.

This meeting will be held in the main Council Chamber, upstairs in the Guildhall (on the Market Square). 

The meeting will also be available via a Livestream, on the Cambridge City Council YouTube channel.

This is ‘crunch time’ for our trees

THE ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND

The area around St Matthew’s Piece lies in the bottom 20% nationally of the ‘Environment Domain’ in the government’s Index of Multiple Deprivation.

This – St Matthew’s Piece Timeline 1890–2020 (Click to open in Google Docs.) – is the history of how the land on which these trees stand was bought in the 1890s, with public money – and given to the local community forever … but then lost by our local councils. The current owners are multinational banking interests and property investors.

Local residents have been fighting to protect and conserve local amenity and environmental assets via Friends of St Matthew’s Piece since 30th April 2020 – and, before that, via Petersfield Area Community Trust, since 1998). Friends of St Matthew’s Piece stand on the shoulders of the giants who, 100 years earlier, in 1898 had established St Matthew’s Piece. This included planting the magnificent London Plane trees that provide all of us with such wonderful benefits today.

Earlier Mill Road Bridges blogposts on the three trees are referenced below:

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR HELP From Friends of St Matthew’s Piece

If you would like to join Friends of St Matthew’s Piece or assist in any of the issues raised in this blogpost, kindly hosted by Mill Road Bridges, please email Friends of St Matthew’s Piece.