Category: Mill Road, Cambridge

“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.

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.

Mill Road – Always Evolving

From a track leading towards Cherry Hinton, to today’s thriving High Street for the Petersfield, Sturton Town, Romsey Town and Coleridge areas, Mill Road has evolved and is still evolving. See our post from August 2018 – Mill Road – the high street of a small town within Cambridge city?

It would be pointless to attempt to replicate the work of others on the changing use of buildings, the establishment and subsequent disappearance of now long-forgotten shops.

Mill Road History Society, in collaboration with Capturing Cambridge, have compiled an impressive body of information about the origins and history of the Mill Road area. And Ainsworth Street’s HistoryWorks has done stirling work on projects involving local school students.

But what about recent changes?

Mill Road Bridge – a link or a barrier?

With the implementation of a modal filter on Mill Road Bridge, its subsequent removal and its imminent re-implementation, arguments have raged about the effect on businesses and other organisations on and around Mill Road.

Back in October 2013 the then Mill Road co-ordinator, Ceri Littlechild, compiled a list of businesses on and around Mill Road, for the nascent Mill Road Traders’ Association. What’s changed in eleven years?

With a bit of voluntary effort, an October 2024 update is now available with all shops, businesses, consultancies, and charitable premises on and around Mill Road listed and compared with what was there in 2013.

We’ve lost a betting shop at each end of the main shopping area – William Hill at Nº8 and Ladbrokes at Nº 262 – and gained places to eat and drink – Tu Casa tapas restaurant at Nº 8 and Relevant Records café at Nº 260 – with a hairdresser – Salon 262 at Nº 262.

The Sally Ann charity shop has moved from 44A Mill Road to 5 Tenison Road, whilst the Co-op has opened a second Mill Road branch in 44A, which once housed…

A Fine Fare supermarket!

Elsewhere, small business units have been redeveloped (Hope Street Yard) or refurbished (The Courtyard, Sturton Street). Cafés and restaurants have mostly occupied the same premises but with new owners and different menus, though there have been a few additions (as well as the two mentioned above).

All of this information and more is available in a spreadsheet for you to download and peruse. It is available in two formats: Apple Numbers (best for iPhones, iPads and Macs) and xlxs (for PCs and Android devices).

Download Mill Road Traders, Businesses, Charities and Other Organisations – 2013 & 2024 (V1 2024.10.11) here:

Of course there may be errors and/or omissions. Let us know, and we’ll update the spreadsheet!

Please note: the xlxs version is an ‘export’ derived from the Numbers original. It has been checked in OpenOffice (Mac) but lacks some grid lines. If there are issues in viewing it, please get in touch. It may be possible to make improvements.

Petition to Protect Fenner’s Cricket Ground

Another guest blogpost from Protect Fenner’s Action Group.

Hughes Hall have confirmed that it has purchased land on Fenner’s and plans to extend the college campus, including student accommodation, onto the ground adjacent to the cricket pitch.  This is currently designated as Protected Open Space in the Glisson Road-Newtown Conservation Area, used for all sorts of cricket-related activity, and is a precious green lung in an increasingly built up city.

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

Hughes Hall is proposing to build accommodation blocks for up to 100 students on the iconic Fenner’s Cricket Ground. 

This means scarce and precious green space in the most densely populated part of Cambridge will be lost forever. 

In planning jargon, Fenner’s is Protected Open Space with a quality rating similar to the Botanic Garden and Parker’s Piece. 

If protected recreational grounds like Fenner’s are developed it will set a dangerous precedent for the whole city. If this is allowed, what green space is safe in the future?

Protect Fenner’s Action Group Petition – Read full details.

Please read the details and sign. You can add a comment after you’ve signed and verified your signature by email.

Image as caption
Diagram of land purchased by Hughes Hall on Fenner’s Cricket Ground,
for building student accommodation
(Proposal shown to residents, 30 November 2023)

For further information, see our guest blog posted in June, on this website Fenner’s Protected Open Space – at risk?

Thank you everyone.

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.

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

Mill Road Bridge – New TRO

Another one? Didn’t Pamela Wesson and her Friends of Mill Road Bridge group win a court case quashing the Traffic Regulation Order?

Not exactly. The legal challenge to the earlier Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) was challenged on technicalities.

Ms Wesson, chair of Friends of Mill Road Bridge, made a statutory claim under paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 challenging Cambridgeshire’s decision to make the Cambridge (Mill Road) (Bus Gate) Order 2023.

Ms Wesson argued that the authority: failed to provide adequate reasons for proposing and for making the order; made a mistake of fact in the operation of an exemption for ‘blue badge’ holders; failed to carry out the public sector equality duty; erroneously took account of the potential to attract funding; and that the decision was tainted by predetermination.

Ms Wesson posted on Facebook that her group was “tremendously gratified by the outcome of the case” which felt like “a David-vs-Goliath struggle”, alleging that the County Council “made a mistake of fact in relation to how the decision affected individuals with disabilities” and it wished for all people to be able to cross the bridge “without detours or fines”. 

However, Katie Hawks, from Mill Road 4 People, said that it was wrong to describe the proposal as a road closure. 

It’s not closed, it’s actually opening it up to more cyclists, pedestrians and faster buses.

We really, really want more children to be able to get to school by themselves safely and [this is] one way of doing this.

Katie Hawks, from Mill Road 4 People

Now Cambridgeshire County Council has agreed to end the legal proceedings and start all over again.

Cambridgeshire County Council has agreed with the claimant to end legal proceedings in relation to the Mill Road Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) challenge.

We will no longer be defending the case through the courts, and the judge has agreed to quash the decision that was made to approve the traffic regulation order for the scheme.

A hearing on the case was held in February and the council has reflected on the outcome of this. It has decided to undertake the statutory consultation and decision-making process on the traffic regulation order again. This is to stop the council spending money and time associated with defending this case.

An update on the Mill Road Traffic Regulation Order and legal challenge, Cambridgeshire County Council, 06 August 2024 (Read the council’s full statement by clicking the link, above)

So this is yet another consultation? How many have we now had?

No. Cambridgeshire County Council has a legal obligation to invite comments on any TRO (rather like the City Council does with planning applications).

The County Council has a duty to look at all objections and take into account any that are valid.

So, I only need to contact the County Council if I object?

Yes and no. Those, such as the Friends of Mill Road Bridge, who oppose the bus gate are likely to claim that the TRO should not be approved if more people object to it, rather than support it.

Was there ever a proper consultation?

There was a thorough public consultation in 2022 carried out by the Greater Cambridge Partnership.

  • 72% of respondents supported vehicle restrictions on Mill Road bridge.
  • 77% opposed doing nothing.
  • 54% indicated that congestion was the most important issue affecting their use of Mill Road.

A bus gate scheme has strong levels of public and political support: local councillors (city and county) have been calling for restrictions to through motor traffic on Mill Road bridge for over 50 years.

Should I respond?

Absolutely! Whether you’re for or against the bus gate TRO you should have your say.

But first read the information on the Cambridgeshire County Council website, to check what is being proposed – what categories of vehicles will be banned from Mill Road bridge, and which will be exempted. Decide for yourself if you think the TRO is fair, balanced and reasonable, or otherwise.

Don’t rely on what you may have read on (anti-)social media. There is a plethora of disinformation circulating.

A good place to start would be the Frequently asked questions section on the County Council’s Mill Road bridge TRO webpage. For a fuller understanding, you could read the council’s Statement of Reasons (PDF).

There are a number of methods to respond. See the Have your say link.

For those in favour of the Mill Road bridge TRO, Camcycle have a variety of points which you may wish to include in this post New Mill Road TRO: Let’s go!

People opposing the Mill Road bridge TRO, may be interested in this Petition to the County Council from Mill Road Traders’ Association. (Note that only a minority of Mill Road traders are members of this association.)

There are, moreover, a number of inaccuracies and contentious statements in this petition.

For example, the petitioners object to “shutting off a main arterial road” whereas Mill Road is one section – along with Brookfields, Parkside, Parker Street, Drummer Street and Emmanuel Street – of the Class III road numbered C280 maintained by Cambridgeshire County Council. Class III, not an A-road, not even a B-road, not ‘arterial’. The Drummer Street and Emmanuel Street sections of C280 are already restricted to buses, taxis, cycles and essential access (eg deliveries). Read for yourself and make up your own mind, whether the Mill Road Traders’ Association are making valid points, in their petition.

Is there more background?

Very much so. Not just the Covid-era restrictions, but a full closure for railway works in summer 2019. And an earlier closure in the 1980s

If you are unfamiliar with the recent history of Mill Road bridge restrictions the Background section on the County Council’s Mill Road bridge TRO webpage, will bring you up-to-speed.

For the 2019 railway-related closure shenanigans (and the Cadent Gas excavations) see Closure of Mill Road Bridge for Railway Works Summer 2019*, which also references the 1980s closure.
*This Mill Road Bridges post has had a little updating but is likely to have a few broken links. It still gives a flavour of the disruption which the Mill Road community had to endure.

Beehive Centre Planning Update

poster text as accompanying text in this post
Click the image to download a printable PDF

Nick Vose​​​​, Director, Marengo Communication, writes:

We are pleased to provide you with an update on Railpen’s proposals for the Beehive Centre.

As you will be aware, we first submitted plans last year, including proposals for new retail, leisure, and community space, as well as laboratory, workspace, and green public space.

However, following feedback on the plans we decided to come back to you with revised designs.

The key uses proposed for the site remain the same, but we have reduced the height and massing of a number of buildings and adjusted building footprints and locations to increase separation distances between buildings and our neighbours.

A new park roughly the same size as St Matthew’s Piece has been introduced and we will plant even more trees (275 in total).

There is also a new direct cycle/pedestrian route through the site and Coldham’s Lane Roundabout will be upgraded to a four-way signalised junction, creating safer connections for pedestrians and cyclists.

Around 20 new shops and leisure facilities, including a small supermarket and gym are included on the ground floor. This is in addition to our plan to invest in Cambridge Retail Park which is also moving forward and will support the re-location of several retailers from the Beehive Centre. The development will also fund an additional 15 public buses per hour with a service extension to the train station, a new service to Milton Park & Ride, as well as new direct services to Cambourne and St Neots, Huntington and St Ives, Ely and Waterbeach. More than 4,200 cycle parking spaces will be created, and 460 car parking spaces – a third of which will provide electric vehicle (EV) charging.

Finally, in response to earlier feedback, we are also looking carefully at how our proposals can help reduce urban temperatures. We know that green spaces, trees, green roofs and vegetation are all very helpful as natural cooling measures and we are planning to replace large areas of concrete with new landscaping, 275 new trees, rain gardens, permeable surfaces and green roofs. In addition, we have committed to undertaking an Urban Greening Factor assessment to evaluate the quality and quantity of green space provided. More commonly used in London this voluntary assessment will demonstrate how green infrastructure has been integral in the design of the development.  Several other design choices will also be taken, including carefully selected materials with a higher albedo, which is the metric for how much incoming sun is reflected by a material surface.

We are still listening and are now inviting residents and stakeholders to comment on these revised plans before we submit an amended planning application.

You can find out more about our updated plans on the 17, 18 and 19 July.

Wednesday 17th July 2024, 12pm – 4pm
ScS – Unit 11 (next to Nando’s), Cambridge Retail Park, Newmarket Road, CB5 8JG

Thursday 18th July 2024, 4pm – 7.30pm
ScS – Unit 11 (next to Nando’s), Cambridge Retail Park, Newmarket Road, CB5 8JG

Friday 19 July 2024, 12 noon
Online webinar: Register here: Beehive Centre Update – Online Webinar Registration

We are also holding a further event for adjacent neighbours on Wednesday 17 July between 6pm and 7.30pm. This event will also be held in the ScS and a separate letter has been sent via the Royal Mail.

Further details of our events are enclosed in the attached community flyer – which has been sent this week to over 6,000 local residents – and we have prepared a social media friendly graphic, also attached, which we are asking stakeholders to share via their own social media channels. 

We look forward to talking you through the latest proposals.

Best regards,
Nick
For and on behalf of Railpen

Summer Shindig

Mill Road Fringe’s annual Summer Shindig is on Sunday 14th July and the weather is (so far) looking warm and sunny. A perfect way to meet friends and enjoy an afternoon/evening of live music in the park. Lots of activities for children. More info here. 

Poster with wording MILL ROAD Fringe Sunday 14 July 2024 Summer Shindig 4pm - 8pm Romsey Rec, Vinery Road A free community event for everyone featuring: Colonel Spanky's Love Ensemble Datum Plane Isabel D'Angelico Arco Iris Bring your own picnic Please, no barbecues. Family activities Artwork kindly created by children from St Philip's Primary School Weather permitting

Fenner’s Protected Open Space – at risk?

A guest blogpost from Protect Fenner’s Action Group.

Cambridge college preaches on environmental issues while planning to build on local protected green space.

Hughes Hall, which recently set up the Centre for Climate Engagement, is proposing to build student housing on protected green open space in the Mill Road neighbourhood. If this is approved, it will set a precedent that makes precious green areas in Cambridge much more vulnerable to development.

In November 2023, the President and Bursar of Hughes Hall told a meeting of local residents about their plans to expand their site, and to build accommodation for 100 more students on part of Fenner’s cricket ground. Fenner’s is a hidden gem that used to be open to the public to wander in, and we are already concerned that over the last 20 years Hughes Hall has privatised it with locked gates.

We haven’t yet seen the plans, but whatever the design details, we are shocked and angry that Hughes Hall feels entitled to build a large development on one of the most highly protected recreational spaces in Cambridge – a space that also acts as a vital green lung within our ward and our dense city centre.

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)

What stands out is the precedent this sets, and the choices the college is making. It is going against local, University and national policies aimed at saving green spaces to alleviate climate change, and increase community well-being. 

Fenner’s is formally designated as a Protected Open Space in the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 [SPO 18, Outdoor Sports Facilities, Fenners Cricket Ground, Petersfield Ward, p290].  Such a designation is a national planning tool that local authorities can use to preserve open spaces in areas or urban zones which are under increasing pressure from developers. This is an issue which the Greater Cambridge Planning Authority and the Universities are working together to address, as the city is rapidly expanding.

This mooted development could be considered to be in breach of the Cambridge Local Plan.

In protecting existing assets, including heritage assets, landscape and water management, development should:

  • seek to protect existing public assets, including open space and leisure facilities. Where the loss of such assets is unavoidable, appropriate mitigation should be provided, including where applicable the replacement of assets in an alternative location, in addition to infrastructure generated by the needs of the development;
  • ensure public rights of way are protected, and enhanced where possible;
Cambridge Local Plan 2018 Policy 14 f,g, p58

Not only is Fenner’s a Protected Open Space, it is also rated in the City Council’s Open Space and Recreation Strategy (October 2011) as the 10th most important Protected Open Space amongst 311 across Cambridge (SPO 18, p105).  It amounts to one third of the total open space in Petersfield Ward, and is hugely important in a ward which is densely built up, without much open green space.

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

Unfortunately there are caveats built into the Cambridge Local Plan Protected Open Space policy, with some potential overrides around education and sports need.  Hence our alarm to hear that Hughes Hall is buying land from the Cambridge University Cricket and Athletics Club Ltd (which owns the cricket ground), and commissioning architects’ plans to build a substantial amount of student accommodation.

However the National Planning Policy Framework [Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, December 2023] imposes duties upon local planning authorities, in regard to open spaces.

  • Access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities, and can deliver wider benefits for nature and support efforts to address climate change. Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities (including quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses) and opportunities for new provision. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sport and recreational provision is needed, which plans should then seek to accommodate.
  • Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:
  • a) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
  • b) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
  • c) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.
National Planning Policy Framework, Section 8, Promoting healthy and safe communities, Open space and recreation, ¶102,103

It is hard to predict how the National Planning Policy Framework may help our case until we hear what Hughes Hall and Cambridge University Sport offer in mitigation of any potential breaches of section 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (above).

College and City values undermined

Hughes Hall recently set up the Centre for Climate Engagement About us – Centre for Climate Engagement (climatehughes.org).  The Centre’s mission “is to encourage academic excellence in climate law, governance and organisational change, and to translate and transfer this knowledge to corporate boards to accelerate the race to net zero emissions and climate resilience.”

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

And yet the College does not see fit to translate these aspirations into its own actions. What does its own Corporate Board have to say about building on precious green open space which it is lucky enough to have on its own doorstep, and which is recognised as a much broader community amenity? 

Given the College’s apparent commitment to environmental and climate issues, residents wonder why the development team hasn’t taken a much longer-term and environmentally responsible approach to secure buildings or brown field sites to develop close by – as Anglia Ruskin University has done over the last 20-25 years.

  • Anglia Ruskin University has made significant progress on the East Road site in modernising the faculty accommodation within the framework of the agreed 2009 masterplan. A planning application was subsequently approved and this work is now largely complete and provides around 9,000 sq m of new accommodation.
  • When the masterplan was written in 2008, Anglia Ruskin University needed around 12,000 sq m. The campus on East Road remains one of the tightest in the sector. However, implementation of the masterplan has left a shortfall in teaching space. The most recent Anglia Ruskin University estate strategy and corporate plan 2012-2014 has identified a need for at least 6,000 sq m of additional space. As well as catering for growth in student numbers, there is also a need to enhance existing space and recently redeveloped space, e.g. for laboratories, which are not meeting current requirements, and to reconsider the future of Anglia Ruskin University’s library on the site. This will require the masterplan for Anglia Ruskin University to be revisited.
  • The East Road site and area remain the most sustainable location for Anglia Ruskin University during the next plan period, and any future needs for this institution should, in the first instance, be met close to this site. Therefore, any development proposals that come forward in these areas should consider whether faculty development is an appropriate use.
Cambridge Local Plan 2018, Policy 43: University development, ¶5.27/28/29, p152

There are other alternatives too. The University of Cambridge has been working with Greater Cambridge Shared Planning to help Cambridge grow sustainably in the future.  They explicitly acknowledge the importance of ceasing piecemeal development in the city centre, and avoiding eating up existing green spaces.  The new development of Eddington to the north west of Cambridge is part of this wider plan, with spaces designated for accommodation, education, social, cultural and sporting activity– with which several colleges are already successfully engaged.

  • The University of Cambridge has plans to grow undergraduate numbers by 0.5 per cent a year and postgraduates by 2 per cent a year in order to maintain its globally successful institution. The University of Cambridge’s key growth needs are being met by the developments in West and North West Cambridge and around Addenbrooke’s, including those satellite centres where the plan is seeking densification and a broader mix of uses. The development of the University of Cambridge’s North West Cambridge site is assessed in accordance with the North West Cambridge AAP. The policy acknowledges existing plans of the University of Cambridge on sites outside of the city centre and also provides an opportunity for redevelopment of sites in the city centre where plans are evolving. The University of Cambridge has other, less advanced, plans for development of faculty uses, for example at Madingley Rise. These will be considered on their merits, and against other relevant policies in the plan – for instance, at Madingley Rise much of the open space is protected.
Cambridge Local Plan 2018, Policy 43: University development, ¶5.26, p152

If Fenner’s, what’s next?

Fenner’s Cricket Ground is an iconic and historic site existing long before Hughes Hall came into being. The land was formerly part of the medieval Open Fields of Cambridge. In 1846, Francis Fenner leased what was, by that time, a former cherry orchard, from Gonville and Caius College for the purpose of constructing a cricket ground. In 1848 he sub-let the ground to Cambridge University Cricket Club.

The local streetscape has been shaped by the boundaries of Fenner’s and the views and open space of the ground are characteristics of the Conservation Area.  This land has never been built on. Why does Hughes Hall think it is appropriate to build on it now, for their own benefit and to the detriment of others? 

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 are published and our petition is launched.

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

Not ANOTHER One!

No, it’s not Brenda from Bristol bemoaning another election; it’s yet another threat to the three trees on St Matthews Piece.

It is hard to believe but the same three magnificent trees on St Matthews’ Piece are again at severe risk.

Photo of two of the trees with a banner reading 'These 3 trees are still at risk'.

The Friends of St Matthew’s Piece, write:

  • The insurance company hopes you will get tired of repeating yourself.
  • Meanwhile the three trees are each facing a new and truly deadly threat. 
  • Please help stop this, by writing an objection to planning application 24/0413/TTPO – ideally by mid-July 2024.
    (Friends of St Matthew’s Piece have learned that 24/0413/TTPO will not come to the Cambridge City Council Planning Committee before 24 July, at the earliest.)

THE THREAT

An insurance claim at 193 Sturton St (a 28-year-old new-build property) blames ‘clay shrinkage subsidence’ on three 126-year-old Sturton St trees. This is the third time in three years these insurers have applied to severely harm – or kill – these three trees.

PLEASE HELP FIGHT THIS

  • Objections from members of the public are needed at least through mid-July 2024.
  • Comment on planning application 24/0413/TTPO via the Council’s Planning Portal or via email. Read below for how to do this. 
  • Any brief objection on what matters most to you is perfect!
  • Some possible grounds to use in your objection are outlined below.
Photo of one of the trees with a poster giving some of the details in this blogpost

SUGGESTED OBJECTIONS

You will have good reasons of your own but here are some extra suggestions:

  1. The 4.5 m deep trench proposed (in 24/0413/TTPO) would be dug to install a root barrier that would be a minimum of 7m from 193 Sturton Street – placing it about 5 m from the three protected trees – well within their vital “root protection areas” (RPAs).
  2. Cutting the roots at that location would destroy up to 26.5% of the three trees’ essential RPAs.
  3. The British Standard BS5837 : 2012  defines the RPA as the minimum needed for trees to be viable.
    A tree’s Root Protection Area can be equated to a circle, using the tree as the centre-point, with a radius that is twelve times the tree’s Diameter at Breast Height for a single stemmed tree.
  4. Cambridge’s Petersfield ward has only one public park – St Matthew’s Piece – vs 56 official parks in Cambridge’s other 13 wards. (More details can be found in The Background section, below.)
  5. Petersfield has a particularly poor tree canopy, with very few mature trees.
  6. Every tree matters in Petersfield, which suffers badly from the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect’.
  7. Each of these 126-year-old Plane Trees has a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), and is in our Conservation Area.
  8. These trees are vital to the wellbeing of every person who lives, works or studies in our community
  9. Harming these trees would breach Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 55, 56, 61, 67 & 71 and, being within the Eastern Gate Opportunity Area (p89) policies 14 & 23, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework [Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, December 2023] ¶96abc, ¶97abc and ¶102 (pp28, 29).
  10. In 2006, 2007 & 2008, in connection with another planning application (06/0567/FUL), the City Council’s own tree expert repeatedly stressed the importance of preserving all the trees on St Matthew’s Piece, both individually and as a group – these trees have only grown in importance since then.

HOW TO SUBMIT AN OBJECTION

  • Follow this link: 24/0413/TTPO | The works involve digging a trench to severe [sic] roots of protected trees 
    OR: search on the planning portal for 24/0413/TTPO2.
  • In order to comment you must be registered.
    If you’re not already registered, start with this registration link on the planning portal.
  • Go back to 24/0413/TTPO, and choose the tab for Comments.
  • Select Make a Comment.
  • Type in your comment.
    You might like to draft your comment in your preferred word processing app (Apple’s Pages, MS Word, etc) in case of any glitch on the Planning Portal. When you’re satisfied with your wording and have corrected eny mystaikes any mistakes and typos, you can copy’n’paste into the box on the Planning Portal.
  • Every adult in your household may register and comment.
  • You should receive a confirmatory email immediately; if not, something went wrong, find the comment tab and copy’n’paste again.
  • If you continue to experience difficulties, you can email planning officer joanna.davies@cambridge.gov.uk citing 24/0413/TTPO. Once again copy’n’paste your comments into the email. You must include your full name and postal address.

THE BACKGROUND

Previous posts about the three trees:

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. Read more on the history of St Matthew’s Piece, on the St Matthew’s Piece Timeline 1890–2020.

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.

IN FUTURE

To be kept up to date, please email friends.of.st.matthews.piece@gmail.com and ask to be added to the FoSMP Supporter’s List. You will be led through a GDPR-compliant sign-up process. This will make sure you receive very occasional email updates on issues like this one.

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 use this email link.

Please forward this blogpost to people who care about trees in or around Cambridge!