Prompted by our recent blogpost St Matthew’s Piece Trees – STILL under threat! and by the urging of Friends of St Matthew’s Piece, many local residents emailed our local City Council ward councillors for Petersfield, ward councillors for the neighbouring Abbey ward and members of the Planning Committee.

The response from councillors has been heartening, but some local residents have puzzled why it is not possible for members of the Planning Committee to give their unqualified support to refuse the application.

Members of the Planning Committee can, and should, consider all of the evidence and every representation made by the public about any planning application.

However, a Planning Committee meeting has a legal (judicial) function and, just as neither judge nor jury may decide the outcome of any case before the court assembles, neither may members of the Planning Committee make a decision on any application before it is considered, in full, at the Planning Committee meeting.

But let Councillor Sam Carling, Cambridge City Councillor for West Chesterton,
Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services and a member of the Planning Committee, explain.

We are pleased to have received permission to publish Councillor Carling’s recent email, in full (below).

Dear resident,

I’m writing to you in response to your email regarding the planning application 23/0119/TTPO – Felling of St Matthew’s Piece Trees, which you sent to me as a member of the Planning Committee. I read your email and considered it in full after receiving it, but I cannot respond to the points you raise regarding the application, and I wanted to explain why.

Committee members are not able to respond to the detail of emails regarding planning applications, as you may have been told, and the very high volume of emails that came in meant I could not reply to each to explain why that is the case. Instead, I thought it best to wait until the emails stopped and then write a response to everyone together. There are also some misconceptions evident in some of the emails I received, so I also wanted to take the opportunity to answer some of those.

Essentially, Planning Committee members must at all times avoid “fettering our discretion”. What this means is, it is critical that members of the committee do not take any action or speak in a way that could be interpreted as biasing our view on the application, or which suggests we have already made our decision (predetermination). If a committee member were to express views on an application prior to the meeting at which it is considered, they would have to withdraw from discussion on the item and not vote on it, though they may speak as a ward councillor if they wish. If a Committee member was found to have been predetermined and had voted on an application, it would leave the decision open to a high risk of challenge.

You are probably aware by now that the application was deferred to be considered at a future Planning Committee meeting. I do not yet have the date on which the application will return – if it comes to the September meeting then the date is the 6^th September, but it may be heard at another month’s meeting. In respect of the meeting last week, the committee did engage in a brief discussion about some of the issues prior to the deferral, which you can find on the livestream of the meeting here between 28:23 and 40:35.

As I said, I would like to correct a couple of misunderstandings included in some of the emails I received:

“Why does the council want to fell these trees?” / “Why have you allowed this application to be submitted?” / words to that effect

The City Council did not submit this application. An application has been received from a third party, which is being dealt with through the standard planning processes. It is due to be determined by the Planning Committee in line with the committee’s duty to determine applications when officers cannot do so under delegated powers or when other procedural matters apply.  The Planning Committee has no powers to prevent anyone from making a planning application; all applications must be determined through the statutory process. 

“Councillors should reconsider their decision” / “Please overturn this decision” / other suggestions that a decision has been made

No decision has been made. An application has been submitted and as yet, no determination/decision has been taken on it.

“Please reassure me that these trees will not be felled” / “Please promise to vote against the felling of these trees”

No Planning Committee member can promise to vote a particular way on a planning application, because that would constitute predetermination as I outlined earlier in this email, and therefore mean that member wouldn’t be able to vote on the application. 

“The Planning Committee should instead order a root barrier to be installed”

The Planning Committee is not able to make such an order. We must determine the application put before us by either allowing it or refusing it; we cannot change the nature of it (though we can add reasonable conditions). Part of the discussion we had at the meeting last week (which I included a link to earlier in this email) was around this issue, and I would encourage you to listen to that if you are interested. Further work on alternatives is ongoing in other parts of the Council.

It is absolutely your right to contact us about things like this – as elected representatives, we are here to serve as your voice in Cambridge. I will of course read any replies to this email, however I am unlikely to be able to respond again in turn due to the need to avoid any perception of bias. I realise that, despite this email being very lengthy, I have not addressed the points raised in your emails about the application itself. I’m sorry about that, I know it is unfortunate and stressful for all members of the community that want to hear some news on this application. Again, please be reassured that I have read and considered your email in full.

If you would like to watch the committee’s discussion on this application when it is next heard, you can watch the livestream of the meeting on the City Council’s YouTube channel, or you can come in person as well if you would like to be present. However, please be warned that we often run quite far behind the guide times listed on the agenda as we tend to be very thorough in our discussions!

Best wishes,

Sam

Email from Councillor Sam Carling, on 11 Aug 2023, at 16:04

---

🌳🌳🌳 EARLIER POSTS

• St Matthew’s Piece Trees – Safe?
• St Matthew’s Piece Trees – STILL under threat!
• St Matthew’s Piece Trees (Again)
• St Matthew’s Piece Trees – Under Threat

---

🌳🌳🌳 THE ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND

---

Local residents have been fighting to protect and conserve local amenity and environmental assets via Friends of St Matthew’s Piece since 30^thApril 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. Read more on the history of St Matthew’s Piece, on the St Matthew’s Piece Timeline 1890–2020.

🌳🌳🌳 THE REPEATED THREAT

An insurance claim at 193 Sturton Street (a new-build approx 25 year old property) blaming clay shrinkage subsidence on three, rare, mature, 125-year old trees, subject of Tree Protection Orders, resulted in a planning application for the felling of these trees.

See earlier posts:

• St Matthew’s Piece Trees – STILL under threat!
• St Matthew’s Piece Trees (Again)
• St Matthew’s Piece Trees – Under Threat

🌳🌳🌳 THE REPRIEVE (FOR NOW)

Hours ahead of the Cambridge City Council Planning Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday 2^nd August 2023 at 10 am the item was removed from the agenda.

On Tuesday 1^st Aug 2023, at 21:21 campaigners received an email in the name of the three city councillors for the Petersfield ward.

Thank you for your email expressing concern and objecting to the felling of these trees. The three of us, the city ward councillors for Petersfield, are very pleased to be able to tell you that the planning application seeking to have the trees felled is being taken off the agenda for the meeting of the Planning Committee tomorrow.

Working together with the Friends of St Matthew’s Pieces we were able to raise more and more technical and legal issues that had not been considered, at least not sufficiently. It became clear that the Committee would not have enough information to assess properly the application and it would have to be deferred pending consideration of the whole matter and especially the new information and questions being raised.

It should not be assumed that this is the end of the matter though. Unless the applicant withdraws the application it will come back to a further meeting of the Planning Committee. We will continue to work hard to get full recognition of the importance of the 3 trees and the importance of not setting a precedent which might endanger further trees.

Apologies that this is not an individual response to your email but there have been so many objectors and we want to give you the news as soon as possible. Thanks again for your contribution to the issue.

Cllr Katie Thornburrow, Cllr Richard Robertson and Cllr Mike Davey

---

An excellent report  By Alex Spencer, Cambridge Independent, updates us on the threat to the trees…

Cambridge protesters hope to stop felling of 125-year old trees at St Matthew’s Piece

---

🌳🌳🌳 THE ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND

---

Local residents have been fighting to protect and conserve local amenity and environmental assets via Friends of St Matthew’s Piece since 30^thApril 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. Read more on the history of St Matthew’s Piece, on the St Matthew’s Piece Timeline 1890–2020.

🌳🌳🌳 PLEASE HELP FIGHT THIS  

Three magnificent trees on St Matthews’ Piece, along Sturton Street, are now at severe risk of being felled.

Alarmingly planning officers have recommended approval for the felling of these three trees.

This is wrong for so many reasons:

• the Plane Trees are not the cause of “tree-related clay shrinkage subsidence”  at 193 Sturton Street
• the consequences of felling these 3 trees are widespread and disastrous
• the monetary value to Cambridge of the trees (based on the Council’s own CAVAT analysis) is more than double the financial cost of saving the trees by installing a root barrier 
• no tree anywhere in Cambridge will now be safe if 125-year old, with Tree Protection Orders, rare mature trees, in a Conservation Area can be felled when a new-build property’s insurer demands it
• it is seeming almost impossible to stop the inexorable march toward this loss.

---

🌳🌳🌳 URGENT ACTION NEEDED

The planning committee meets on Wednesday 2^nd August 2023 at 10 am.

The time for formal objections is long past, so please email your views now to Planning Committee Members and other Councillors.

Scroll down for a pre-formatted email to all of the relevant councillors.

---

🌳🌳🌳 THE REPEATED THREAT

An insurance claim at 193 Sturton Street (a new-build approx 25 year old property) blames clay shrinkage subsidence on three 125-year-old trees. A planning application has been submitted for the felling of these three trees.

Last summer, Cambridge City Council’s Planning Committee refused permission for these three precious trees to be severely cut back in both height and spread. The harm to the trees was judged not to be justified by the evidence. More information was required. (More here in this earlier post: St Matthew’s Piece Trees – Under Threat. Especially useful are the soil moisture deficit graphs.)

Instead: the applicant has submitted an application (23/0119/TTPO) to fell the three trees (or to install a ‘root barrier’ along part of Sturton Street). Their scanty documents fail to address even the reasons for refusal last summer. Fuller details can be found in our earlier post here: St Matthew’s Piece Trees (Again).

See pp. 10-11 of the applicant’s Addendum Report On A Subsidence Claim Arboricultural Recommendations under the ‘Documents’ tab for 23/0119/TTPO on the Planning Portal.

---

🌳🌳🌳 SUGGESTED OBJECTIONS

Everybody will have good reasons of their own, to object. Please explain the importance of these trees to you. Here are some suggestions to which the Friends of St Matthew’s Piece have contributed.

1. Felling of these three, rare, mature, 125-year old trees, subject to Tree Protection Orders will set a dangerous precedent; no tree anywhere in Cambridge will now be safe from a new-build property’s insurer’s demands.
2. Councillors may wish to reflect upon the potential damage to the city’s reputation, were these three trees to be felled, when local, regional and national news media report upon the decision and the inevitable public protests. (News links below.)
3. Compared to the 56 official parks in Cambridge’s other 13 wards, Petersfield ward has no other park than St Matthew’s Piece.
4. Petersfield has a poor tree canopy, with very few mature trees.
5. Every tree matters in Petersfield, which already suffers from the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect’.
6. These three Plane Trees all have Tree Preservation Orders, and are in Petersfield’s Conservation Area.
7. Changes to a Conservation Area require public benefit to outweigh public harm.
8. There will be no public benefit from felling any of these three trees – only massive public harm.
9. These these trees are vital to every person who lives, works or studies in our community.
10. The City Council’s tree experts stressed in 2006 the importance of preserving all the trees on St Matthew’s Piece, individually and as a group – trees that have only grown in importance since. 
11. Data provided to show a ‘seasonal subsidence pattern’ instead contradict tree-related clay shrinkage.
12. The data showing a doubling of ‘foundation movement’ in December 2022 appears to be highly selective.
13. Leafless in winter, these deciduous trees take up almost no water so could not double the subsidence shown in December 2022. (Temperature chart, below.)
14. The recommendations don’t consider the severe risk of ‘heave’ (soil swelling) on the basement level of the adjacent old Howard Mallett building – if these three trees are felled. (Map extract below.)

Reference notes on the above points.

Let’s hope that Cambridge will avoid being the next scandal-riven city in this sequence:

• Sheffield council issues apology over tree-felling scandal (1 & 2)
• Plymouth council leader quits after approving cutting down of 110 trees (1 & 2)

---

🌳🌳🌳 EMAIL OUR CITY COUNCILLORS

Use the link below to generate an email

• To: all members of the Planning Committee
• Cc: Petersfield and Abbey Councillors plus ‘reserve’ members of the Planning Committee

Email our councillors here.

---

🌳🌳🌳 THE ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND

---

Local residents have been fighting to protect and conserve local amenity and environmental assets via Friends of St Matthew’s Piece since 30^thApril 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. Read more on the history of St Matthew’s Piece, on the St Matthew’s Piece Timeline 1890–2020.