At the 1st November 2023 Cambridge City Council Planning Committee meeting, the three 125-year-old threatened London Plane Trees along Sturton Street were vigorously and successfully defended.
Around 40-50 members of the public lined the outer rows of seats in the main Council chamber. Some carried banners and placards, which were held aloft throughout.
Powerful and clear speeches in strong defence of the trees were given by Friends of St Matthew’s Piece, by all three of our Petersfield ward Councillors – Councillor Mike Davey, Labour, Leader of the Council; Councillor Richard Robertson, Labour; Councillor Katie Thornburrow, Labour, Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure – and also by Councillor Jean Glasberg, Newnham, Green Party, Green & Independent (Spokes) for Communities, Open Spaces and City Services, Climate Action and Environment.
Several of these speeches cited recent incisive legal input from the highly respected expert planning solicitor Richard Buxton. This is not the first time Richard has been key to protecting St Matthew’s Piece. See March & July 2007 in – St Matthew’s Piece Timeline 1890–2020 (Click to open in Google Docs.)
A thorough and penetrating debate took place about many aspects of the application to fell these three trees. All of the voting Planning Committee Members diligently interrogated the complex issues objectively. Most made a point of specifically mentioning the many emails they had received directly from local residents – these clearly had an important impact.
The decision to refuse the application was finally taken – and it was unanimous – to the enormous relief and delight of all the Friends of St Matthew’s Piece supporters in the chamber. Robust and detailed ‘Reasons to Refuse’ were then formally agreed.
??? We must all remain vigilant, to continue to ensure these precious trees last another 125 years – and more!
Moreover, St Matthew’s Piece needs support in protection from inappropriate development. Scroll down to read more
??? 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.
If you would like to join Friends of St Matthew’s Piece or assist in any of the issues raised in this and other blogposts about St Matthew’s Piece, kindly hosted by Mill Road Bridges, please email Friends of St Matthew’s Piece.
The crucial meeting on the fate of the three threatened trees is tomorrow Wednesday 1st November.
It will be at 10 am in the main Council Chamber at the Guildhall
It is open to the public, via the Peas Hill entrance only, from 9.30 am
First real item of business on the agenda – please come, and please be prompt
It would be very helpful for as many supporters as possible to be there!
If we can’t save these 3 highly protected trees, NO tree in Cambridge is safe.
??? Extracts of a letter by an Friends of St Matthew’s Piece supporter to the Planning Committee:
…With family in Sheffield and in Plymouth, I’m very aware of how much is at stake tomorrow for all concerned in this application/decision, including yourselves….
I’ve just read the latest report from Joanna Davies to the Committee. I write with other decision-making processes in my mind regarding Council tree officers, favouring the removal of trees at this period of climate chaos.
Tree officers are being asked to take decisions that require professional knowledge and skill, a multi-disciplinary approach, and ethical thinking that the current regulatory framework does not allow for. In this case, Ms Davies is not competent to answer questions about building methods and therefore about buildings allegedly affected by tree roots, nor is she mandated (or qualified) to question the potential involvement and motives of the owners of the land on which the three trees sit. Yet these are crucial questions that may affect … these terrible acts of destruction, and part of the story of our area. They are not relevant to a tree officer but they are, in reality, central to questions of justice and the preservation of Petersfield.
[Did] the additional advice Ms Davies sought about this application lead to a thorough on-site inspection of the allegedly threatened building? … Was this in fact merely a paper exercise, just checking the bureaucratic competence of the insurers claim?
In Sheffield … the destruction of mature trees has been experienced by the public as acts of slaughter, even murder. There is no comfort in the argument that no one responsible actually broke the law. Traditionally ‘safe’ left wing constituencies have voted against Labour councillors as a direct consequence of decision making that resulted in mature trees being felled against public wishes.
Trees are experienced everywhere as living beings who share our lives, and the regulations to which Ms Davies is bound, and the processes by which such decisions are made, are clearly inadequate. I hope councillors can find that … there remain too many questions in this case that … she is neither authorised nor professionally competent to answer.
These heavy matters now rest with yourselves. I hope the wisest and most morally fair decision is taken tomorrow…
??? 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:
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.
On Wednesday 1st November 2023, the fate of the three threatened trees on St Matthew’s Piece is the first item of real business at Cambridge City Council’s Planning Committee. 10am, Guildhall.
The Planning Committee is open to the public. Please attend the meeting, and encourage others to attend.
??? THE CONTINUING THREAT
An insurance company is demanding that these 125-year-old trees be felled. They are acting for the absentee landlord of 193 Sturton Street, a neglected HMO (house in multiple occupancy) built 100 years after these trees were planted.
Many hundreds of objections have been written by local residents directly to Councillors, as well as formally to the Council.
??? THE AUGUST REPRIEVE
On Tuesday 1st Aug 2023, at 21:21, hours ahead of the Cambridge City Council Planning Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday 2nd August 2023, the item was removed from the agenda. 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
??? HOWEVER…
The latest report to Cambridge City Council Planning Committee (Presenting Officer Joanna Davies) appears to weight the arguments in favour of removal of these three 100+ year-old trees.
Mike, a key Friends of St Matthew’s Piece supporter read the Officer’s Report and concluded:
“…while on its face it gives the decision to the council members (who, after all, are responsible for the decision), it appears to me to be weighted against refusal of consent. While amenity is recognised, it is immediately undermined… If I were a disinterested council member, I would read the document as telling me that the costs and risks involved in refusing consent clearly outweigh amenity etc… that is how I read it.”.
These attitudes must beovercome to save these trees.
???OTHER BATTLES TO SAVE TREES
Residents (rightly) have strong feelings about preserving the beauty, the majesty and the amenity of mature trees. How has it played out elsewhere? Will St Matthew’s Piece be another Alexandra Gardens? Or another Sheffield? Or Plymouth? Are the Cambridge City Council Planning Committee members soon to be ex-councillors?
??? Sheffield: direct action, security guards, assaults, arrests?
A programme of felling of street trees continued for two years, leading to horrendous reputational damage, to the city and the city council with widespread coverage in national news media. Only after the ruling party on Sheffield City Council (Labour) lost a number of seats in the local election, did talks start with protesters.
Council leader Richard Bingley (Conservative) who signed off night-time mass felling as part of £12m regeneration scheme was forced into early resignation.
Cambridge City Council’s Planning Committee is open to the public. Please attend the meeting, and encourage others to attend. City Councillors must understand residents‘ strength of feeling, and councillors’ duty to their electorate.
??? 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:
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.
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 6th 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 herebetween 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
Local residents have been fighting to protect and conserve local amenity and environmental assets via Friends of St Matthew’s Piece since 30thApril 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.
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.
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.
Hours ahead of the Cambridge City Council Planning Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday 2nd August 2023 at 10 am the item was removed from the agenda.
On Tuesday 1st 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
Local residents have been fighting to protect and conserve local amenity and environmental assets via Friends of St Matthew’s Piece since 30thApril 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.
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.
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 2nd 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.
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.
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.)
Compared to the 56 official parks in Cambridge’s other 13 wards, Petersfield ward has no other park than St Matthew’s Piece.
Petersfield has a poor tree canopy, with very few mature trees.
Every tree matters in Petersfield, which already suffers from the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect’.
These three Plane Trees all have Tree Preservation Orders, and are in Petersfield’s Conservation Area.
Changes to a Conservation Area require public benefit to outweigh public harm.
There will be no public benefit from felling any of these three trees – only massive public harm.
These these trees are vital to every person who lives, works or studies in our community.
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.
Data provided to show a ‘seasonal subsidence pattern’ instead contradict tree-related clay shrinkage.
The data showing a doubling of ‘foundation movement’ in December 2022 appears to be highly selective.
Leafless in winter, these deciduous trees take up almost no water so could not double the subsidence shown in December 2022. (Temperature chart, below.)
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:
Local residents have been fighting to protect and conserve local amenity and environmental assets via Friends of St Matthew’s Piece since 30thApril 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.
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.
Another guest post from Valerie Neal, a Friend of St Matthew’s Piece
??? THE 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.
Objections would be most helpful by Monday 20th February, but will be accepted after that date.
Scroll down for possible grounds to use in your objection.
??? THE ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND
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 now submitted a new 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.
However, this time, the applicant has also given a bit of information on an alternative to felling or pruning, namely a ‘root barrier’. They have shown one aerial photo for the possible location of a root barrier and obtained one quote for the cost of delivering this. 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 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION
Everybody will have good reasons of their own, but here are some suggestions from the Friends of St Matthew’s Piece:
The only official park in the Petersfield ward is St Matthew’s Piece, compared to 56 official parks in Cambridge’s 13 other wards.
Petersfield has a particularly poor tree canopy, with very few mature trees.
Each of these 125-year-old Plane Trees has a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), and is in our Conservation Area.
Changes to a Conservation Area require public benefit to outweigh public harm – but there would be zero public benefit from felling these three trees, only massive public harm.
These trees are vital to the wellbeing of every person who lives, works or studies in our community.
The applicant has not shown what harm now exists at the property… and completely failed to demonstrate how the “slight” cracks previously reported are due to the trees – rather than poor foundations, shoddy construction or “thermal movement” in the modern brickwork.
If the applicant is convinced that the trees are harming the property, then the Planning Committee could permit them to install a good-quality root barrier, if done without significantly harming the trees.
The applicant (or owner of the property) must pay for the root barrier. Due diligence required them to take into account trees that had been present for 100 years before this property was constructed.
BS5837:1991 (applicable at the time of construction of 193 Sturton Street) described the then British Standards on trees and construction.
The relevant National House Building Council standards document (section 4.2 Building near trees 4.2.7 Foundations in shrinkable soils) is illustrated below. Note the NHBC advice: Root barriers are not an acceptable alternative to the guidance given.
The majority of the ‘Standard References’ listed on p.12 of the applicant’s Addendum Report On A Subsidence Claim Arboricultural Recommendations were already published before the construction of 193 Sturton Street, so should have been taken into account.
Felling these trees would breach Cambridge Local Plan (2018) Policies 14, 23, 55, 56, 61, 67 & 71 as well as National Planning Policy Framework ¶91abc, ¶92abc and ¶96, as outlined in greater detail in the parallel Objection prepared by Friends of St Matthew’s Piece.
In 2006, 2007 & 2008, the City Council’s own tree expert repeatedly stressed (in connection with Planning Application 06/0567/FUL Erection of a community innovation centre (refused) the importance of preserving all the trees of St Matthew’s Piece, both individually and as a group – and these trees have only grown in importance since then.
Local residents have been fighting to protect and conserve local amenity and environmental assets via Friends of St Matthew’s Piece since 30thApril 2020 – and, before that, via Petersfield Area Community Trust, since 1998). We 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.
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.
A guest post from Valerie Neal, a Friend of St Matthew’s Piece
Local residents have been fighting to protect and conserve local amenity and environmental assets via Friends of St Matthew’s Piece since 30thApril 2020 – and, before that, via Petersfield Area Community Trust, since 1998). We 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.
Trees in Petersfield
Consider how poor is the tree cover generally in the surrounding area. Our little St Matthew’s Piece is Petersfield’s only official park (versus the 56 parks in the other 13 Cambridge wards; see the 2018 Cambridge Local Plan’s Appendix C). Petersfield is poorly provided for not only with regard to Public Open Space but also when it comes to tree canopy, number of trees, and tree coverage. All of this while Petersfield has the most densely housed population in Cambridge, living in properties that are predominantly very small houses or flats (with little or no private gardens; see p24 of the most recent Friends of St Matthew’s Piece submission to the Planning Portal).
Friends of St Matthew’s Piece are not the only ones to have noticed. A recent (late 2021) pan-European study included Cambridge in its review of 1000 cities – Green space and mortality in European cities: a health impact assessment study [The Lancet, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 10, E718-E730, OCTOBER 01, 2021]. This revealed that 68% of Cambridge residents do not have the WHO-recommended access to green space.
These 68% are, naturally, not evenly distributed across Cambridge. The Environment ‘Domain’ of the latest iteration of the Government’s Index of Multiple Deprivation reveals that the area around St Matthew’s Piece falls into the 2nd most deprived of 10 decilesnationally, with regard to this parameter.
All of the splendid mature trees around the (now, tragically, privatised – in 2018) northern half of St Matthew’s Piece have continued to thrive, thanks to the twin protections of Tree Preservation Order No 4/2005 and their location within the Mill Road Conservation Area (1993). The benefits are mutual: these trees are themselves vital to the Mill Road Conservation Area. Check Tree Preservation Orders on the Cambridge City Council website here.
But that does not mean these precious trees are safe.
A New Threat
On 15th March, a scant week before the 22nd March deadline set by Greater Cambridge Shared Planning for the submission of comments, Friends of St Matthew’s Piece learned by chance of the ‘tree application’
22/0271/TTPO | T1, T2 & T3: London Plane – Reduce height by ~5m and spread by ~4m balancing crown of all three trees. Prune on a triennial cycle to maintain broadly at reduced dimensions. | St Matthews Centre And St Matthews Piece Sturton Street Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB1 2QF
This proposed a brutal cutting back of three of the original 1898 trees along Sturton Street: each by 5 m in height and 4 m in spread. Why? To address problems detected in a 25-year-old property at 193 Sturton Street – a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The papers on the planning portal concerning 22/0271/TTPO are viewed by Friends of St Matthew’s Piece and other Objectors as scanty, flawed and contradictory, building a very weak case for any cutting back any of the trees – never mind all three trees.
The trees are still at risk. The local community responded magnificently to an appeal from Friends of St Matthew’s Piece to defend them. Within five days, no fewer than 43 local Objections to the planning application were submitted. 28 have been uploaded under the ‘Documents’ tab of the Planning Portal for 22/0271/TTPO; as well as 15 Comments (all objections) under the ‘Public Comments’ tab. The objections are thoughtful, well-informed and effective – worth reading.
If you wish to add your voice to these Public Comments, you can register and submit your views right until the application goes to a meeting of the City Council Planning Committee.
City Councillor for Petersfield Ward, Richard Robertson, has ‘called in’ the application, which means it can no longer be decided by a Planning Officer but must go before the Planning Committee to be determined. We don’t yet know when this will happen (the next meetings are 14th June and 6th July 2022).
Arguments against the proposal are varied and wide-ranging. Many wrote in support of the importance, value, diverse environmental roles and beauty of these historic trees. The most powerful perhaps relate to water, as explained in pp 17–19 of the full submission by Friends of St Matthew’s Piece –Objection to 22/0271/TTPO.
The insurance company could spend upwards of £80,000 to underpin 193 Sturton Street, to address the subsidence they have found there since the summer of 2019. The alternative they propose instead is to severely cut back our three protected trees and spend around £8,000 to repair the cracks and redecorate. They argue that the damage to the house is due to the trees taking up too much water, and have tried to prove this by measuring the movement of the house at 8 different points over the course of 1 year, running May-to-May. Here is their graph:
But are our trees the true cause of this subsidence?
The lower curves on the insurance company’s graph, the ones showing the most movement, all echo precisely that seen – on a matching May-to-May horizontal axis – in the annual variation in soil moisture deficit (SMD). This 2nd graph is from the Environment Agency, based on more than 60 years of data. This shows a predictable and well established regional seasonal pattern in soil moisture deficit:
Parts of 193 Sturton St have therefore been recorded as moving entirely in synchrony with the:
longstanding,
natural,
firmly established, and
widespread
annual cycle of soil drying under the property. This occurs over the entire East Anglian region – irrespective of any effect of trees on St Matthew’s Piece. It is the view of Friends of St Matthew’s Piece that no evidence is produced in planning application 22/0271/TTPO that crown reduction and spread reduction of our three trees would have any significant or sustained protective impact at 193 Sturton Street – in the inescapablecontext of this annual hydrogeological cycle.
Furthermore: many houses are just as close to St Matthew’s Piece trees but it is only this one that has cracks – the problem seems to be with this new house, not with these old trees.
How many more Cambridge trees will face similar threats, when the fundamental problem is unlikely to be the trees themselves but over-abstraction of water associated with over-development and its impact on the local water table?
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.
Whist slightly outside our territory, there is plenty of local concern about water quality in our city’s river and keen interest in our local Cam/Granta tributary, Cherry Hinton Brook.
Cam Valley Forum has a tentative proposal to designate formally a stretch of the River Cam in Cambridge as a ‘bathing water’.
However, not everyone is in agreement, that this is the best route to cleaning the Cam…
At this initial informal consultation stage, Cam Valley Forum are inviting comments from local interests directly concerned with the River in the City. The proposal cannot proceed without the benefit of widespread support and agreement.
In the Victorian era, all rubbish and waste of every kind was disposed of directly into the river Cam, or into King’s Ditch, right near Market Square.
According to legend, Queen Victoria herself came to visit Cambridge early in her reign. While she was here, she looked at the river, and found it so filthy that she couldn’t even identify all the kinds of rubbish that were floating in the water. She asked, “What are those pieces of paper floating in the river?” Rather than saying they were book and newspaper pages used as toilet paper, the tactful answer was, “Those Ma’am are notices that bathing is forbidden!”.
Eglantyne Jebb was a campaigner for improved living conditions. She wrote an important policy report advocating proper piping from toilets to sewage pipes, and a sewage treatment facility. Her work resulted in the pumping station built on Riverside in 1894, now the Cambridge Museum of Technology.
The Cam has been used for bathing for over four centuries. Traditionally men and boys from the town swam from the banks of Sheep’s Green, whereas those from the University swam a little further upstream. By the early nineteenth century, at least, both sites had become official bathing places known as the Town Sheds and the University Sheds. In the nineteenth century and for much of the twentieth, swimming in the river was immensely popular, and both sites had steps into the river, spring-boards, slides and diving platforms.
The Town Sheds were more lavishly equipped. They were managed by a custodian who, amongst other duties, taught boys to swim in Snobs’ Stream (the Millstream that branches from the Cam just south of Hodson’s Folly to serve Newnham Mill). The Town Sheds were a male preserve until, in 1896, the corporation opened the Ladies’ Bathing Place at the southern tip of Sheep’s Green where Snobs’ Stream leaves the river. In 1962 the Ladies’ Bathing Place was closed and mixed bathing was allowed at the Town Sheds.
In the 1970s, concerns about the health risks of polluted river water led to the closure of the Town Sheds and, by 1980, the site had become the base for the Cambridge Canoe Club. In the following decades swimming in rivers was discouraged and the Cam Conservancy, whose remit as the navigation authority includes the upper river, forbade swimming in daylight hours except at designated bathing places. By the beginning of this century there were no such designated places.
However, people continued to swim from the area of the Town Sheds. Jumping off the bridge remained popular. The secluded site of the University Sheds, by then renamed the Newnham Riverbank Club, provides simple wild swimming facilities for paying members. In recent years, people have increasingly enjoyed swimming from Sheep’s Green and Grantchester Meadows, and membership of the Newnham Riverbank Club is over-subscribed. Now, the Cam Conservancy allows swimming in the whole upper river from Byron’s Pool, above Grantchester, down to the King’s Mill Weir in Cambridge.
You may send any comments to Cam Valley Forum at info@camvalleyforum.uk. If you would like to have a meeting to discuss the proposals, please mention this in your email. You may also leave (polite) comments on this website, below.
Johnny Palmer was so determined to tackle water quality at an island beauty spot near Bath that he bought the land. He now hopes to make Warleigh Weir the first area of river in the UK to be given bathing water status to spearhead a national campaign to clean up inland waterways.
Palmer, a property investor who has swum with his family at Warleigh Weir for many years, was shocked to find out that Wessex Water is allowed to discharge untreated sewage into the River Avon around the beauty spot.
“When I was told, I was like, ‘Woah, hold on. Back up a second. Seriously?’ I didn’t realise storm water mixed with untreated sewage flowed into our river.”
Perhaps the most persistent campaigners have been Becky Malby and her fellow advocates from the Ilkley Clean River Group.
Here is a flavour of the unfolding unfolding story…
Local people in a Yorkshire town are pressing for their river to become the first in the UK to be designated as a bathing area to force the authorities to clean up the water they say is being used as an open sewer.
In the spa town of Ilkley a grassroots campaign has uncovered the regular and routine dumping of untreated sewage by Yorkshire Water – with the approval of the Environment Agency – into the River Wharfe.
Growing pressure to clean up Britain’s rivers to meet bathing water quality is a “game changer” that will require more government funding as the public embrace the outdoors, the head of the Environment Agency has said.
A growing number of river users are calling for action to tackle the routine and legal discharge of untreated sewage into Britain’s waterways, which they say amounts to treating them like an open sewer.
The Environment Agency says nothing will be done to stem the flow of sewage into a Yorkshire river popular with swimmers and families until at least 2030.
Despite acknowledging that the level of sewage discharges into the River Wharfe at Ilkley – which have been admitted by Yorkshire Water – should trigger an investigation, the EA told campaigners nothing will happen for 10 years.
Campaigners seeking to make a river in Yorkshire the UK’s first to be designated a bathing area have accused environment ministers of blocking their application.
In the spa town of Ilkley, river users and residents submitted a 65-page application to turn part of the River Wharfe in the town into a bathing water area last October.
Ilkley’s three Bradford district councillors have expressed concern that the ongoing campaign to get the Wharfe designated for ‘safe swimming’ fails to acknowledge the river’s poor safety record.
Part of the River Wharfe in Ilkley, which is a popular swimming and paddling spot, is to be added to the list of bathing waters next year, after months of campaigning.
A stretch of the River Wharfe in Ilkley will have its pollution levels monitored by the Environment Agency to ensure it is safe for swimming.
The move follows a campaign by local residents who said they had seen “human solid waste” on the river bank.
Becky Malby, from the Ilkley Clean River Group, said she was “absolutely over the moon” at the news.
Selected paragraphs from news reports on the Guardian, Yorkshire Post and BBC websites. Click on each to read more details.
Just as there were multiple issues over the Ilkley River Wharfe proposals, not all Cambridge people are sure that this is the best way forward…
This is the response from Newnham Croft Residents’ Association to Stephen Tomkins and Cam Valley Forum.
Dear Stephen and CVF
I am writing on behalf of Newnham Croft Residents Association in regard to your proposals for Sheeps Green.
The state of the river, as you show, is indeed shocking, and we all want to see water quality improved. However, we have concerns about designation of this small area as a bathing place for the following reasons:
1. Safety
There are major safety issues:
Scudamores now have many more punts, which come along this part of the river
There is now a canoe club on the site with 500 members situated next to the Learner pool, with canoes launching along the area in front of it. They are aware of the hazard this poses, and are suggesting that the bathing place should be at the former Ladies bathing place. This is adjacent to the Nature Reserve however, and increased noise and disturbance would be very detrimental to the wildlife there.
Even if lifeguards were provided, with so much activity in this part of the river it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to supervise swimming safely here, and there are real dangers – a child drowned here only a couple of years ago.
2. Environmental Impact
As your photos show, Sheeps Green used to be a popular bathing place with people from across the city, and many of us have very happy memories of swimming there in the 1970s. However, there was no car park then and although it was very busy on fine days, most of us walked or cycled.
There would now be serious issues of environmental capacity – Sheeps Green and Coe Fen are both protected green spaces, and Paradise, which was like a jungle in the 1970s is now a very popular city nature reserve.
The pressure on all these places and Lammas Land has grown enormously over the past year, and it seems that this will continue to increase as Cambridge expands and people are prepared to travel long distances by car to enjoy the places they have heard about on ‘what’s app’ and Facebook.There would need to be an environmental impact assessment as this proposal is likely to lead to a large increase in noise and disturbance that would be to be harmful to the wildlife and biodiversity, which should be given priority here.
3. Access
The only access for cars is down the Driftway, which leads off a rather hazardous junction. It is a narrow lane shared with pedestrians and cycles, and the small car park is used by shoppers, visitors to Lammas Land, Sheeps Green and Paradise as well as members of the Canoe Club. It is usually completely full already in the summer, with people parking (illegally) along the lane as well.
4. Facilities
The information given regarding the facilities available on site is rather misleading.
There are no changing facilities – the Canoe Club now occupies the site of the former bathing sheds and the couple of small rooms at the Learner Pool are only for children.
The 6 toilets at Lammas Land are not adequate for people using the park in the summer, let alone additional people coming to swim at a bathing place on the river.
There is no café, only a small kiosk serving drinks and ice- cream.
This is a small, environmentally sensitive area, and not suitable for building these facilities to meet the needs of visitors at a designated bathing place. We allwant to get the water quality in the Cam and its chalk streams improved, but a focus on this one small area could cause unintended harm.
As Stephen wrote to me, ‘Wearing my ecology/wildlife hat I am not so keen on expanding the use of that area for people in high summer, but it is unquestionably a gambit that will force the hand of Anglian Water to really make a much bigger effort to raise the water quality’
It should not be necessary to risk irreparable harm to a protected green space and nature reserve to get Anglian Water to improve water quality along the whole river, and I hope we will be able to work with you to achieve this .
We would be happy to attend a meeting to discuss it with you further.
Kind Regards Jean Glasberg Chair Newnham Croft Residents Association
Tony Booth started this petition – Save the Cam – on behalf of the Friends of the River Cam, are asking individuals and organisations to put pressure on local government, water companies and the Environment Agency in the Cambridge area to Save the River Cam and its tributaries by signing up to support the Cam River Charter.
Friends of the Cam letter to Cam Valley Forum
The Friends of the Cam have given consideration to the CVF proposal to apply for bathing quality status for the Cam at Sheep’s Green.
While we are eager to explore ways of restoring the health of the river, we are deeply concerned that choosing one small point on the river could, paradoxically, do more harm than good.
These facilities are currently either inadequate or would need to be provided, and this would have a hugely detrimental effect on this delicate nature reserve. Cambridge has doubled in size since Sheep’s Green was last a popular swimming location. 50 years ago locals would have travelled there by bike or walked. Today, however, official designation would draw people in from a much larger city, and from a further afield too, bringing traffic and related air pollution.
Sheep’s Green would become a huge draw, attracting far larger crowds than at any time in the past, to what is an environmentally sensitive water meadow, grazed by cows which, as Kim Wilkie pointed out in his talk to Friends of the Cam, have been a critical part of this finely balanced ecosystem for centuries. The cows kick up ground which allows wildflowers to seed, prevent larger plants from establishing and fertilise the soil. This ecology is also described here, in the Eastern Daily Press.
It is extremely likely that authorities would decide that the cows should be removed.
And the views of the Federation of Cambridge Residents’ Associations
Dear Cam Valley Forum,
Cam Valley Swimming Proposal
Lots of residents have contacted Federation of FeCRA committee members about the Forum’s application to make the area adjacent to the Canoe Club into a Designated Bathing Area. We are hearing citywide concern that this will endanger unique medieval green spaces, described by the landscape architect Tom Turner as equivalent to the best art in the Fitzwilliam Museum.
If the intention is to put pressure on Anglian Water residents wonder why Cam Valley Forum isn’t asking for a much bigger stretch of the river to be clean. Anglian Water’s track record on pollution is bad and yet despite that it is receiving substantial government funding from Homes England to relocate the sewage works.
We have previously flagged concerns [To the Cambridge City Council Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee. Click to read/download the PDF.] about what appears to be a well orchestrated lobby against cows grazing on the commons. There are concerns that a bathing place at Sheeps Green could lead to the loss of the cows which are an intrinsic part of the ecosystem there. This was raised again in our question to the Scrutiny Committee about the council’s support for plastic cows on the commons but not the real cows.
Cambridge commons losing their cows and, with that, their status as commons goes completely against all that the landscape architect Kim Wilkie said at the recent Friends of the Cam talk about a river landscape strategy and the role of grazed meadows in flood management.
Other concerns people have shared with us include the impact on biodiversity and on much loved city nature reserves and the big impact on local wildlife and nature large numbers of bathers, picknickers and sunbathers on the edge of Paradise Nature Reserve is likely to have.
Safety is another issue that has been raised. The punting route to Grantchester Meadows is very popular and the proximity of the very popular canoe club with a membership of 500, drawn from a wide catchment, makes this unsuitable for a designated swimming area. Wild swimming is also very popular and people are likely to come from miles. The car park is already full in the summer months, more people driving over for a swim would soon cause overflow.
Has there been any health and safety assessment about the likely number of users and congestion on the river ? Any traffic impact assessment ?
The recent report commissioned by the City Council and Cambridge Water included no impact assessment of river areas and/or river green spaces at risk or threatened by development.
Residents are asking if this bathing initiative relates to Natural Cambridgeshire’s plans for a Cam River Park corridor, the proposals for Accelerator Parks and the Wider Cambridge Visitors Project.
The lack of changing cabins and public toilets will require infrastructure which would not be acceptable to people in a protected green space. People have highlighted that Cambridge’s famously rus in urbe style of cows on the meadows is admired all over the world. This New York Times article was widely syndicated.
Allan Brigham, Cambridge’s champion of the commons, wrote :
“Whichever way you approach Cambridge, you see grass, trees and lots of sky. The college gardens, parks and commons bring nature right into the town. Cows graze on Midsummer Common just five minutes’ walk from Marks & Spencer – and in the summer office workers and students eat their lunch beneath the willows trees that line the river at Coe Fen. At weekends Jesus Green becomes a giant playing field with games of every kind – from skateboarding to lacrosse. These spaces are vital to people’s wellbeing,”
“It’s easy to take Cambridge’s open spaces for granted. But … the protection of these spaces is, to my mind, just as important as the preservation of Cambridge’s iconic buildings.”
For all these reasons the FeCRA committee cannot support this application. As we have said before, it would be great if Cam Valley Forum can work with FeCRA and Friends of the River Cam so that together we can urge the City Council to use its powers and that of the Environment Agency to be much more ambitious, ensure that the green spaces of the Cam are protected, that water quality along the whole river is improved and that the river is safe for all users.
Best wishes, Wendy Blythe, Chair For the FeCRA Committee
What are your views on this tentative proposal? You may send any comments to Cam Valley Forum at info@camvalleyforum.uk. If you would like to have a meeting to discuss the proposals, please mention this in your email. You may also leave (polite) comments on this website, below.
Those of us who have ventured to the far end of Mill Road to Burnside, and along Snakey Path during last summer, will have seen the poor state of Cherry Hinton Brook. This was highlighted in a YouTube video by local citizen blogger Antony Carpen.
Cam Valley Forum reports: During the 2019 summer, the dry weather reduced our River Cam to little more than an elongated pond with a pathetic tickle over the weirs at Jesus Green. Some of the Cam tributaries dried up, many only flowing because they have been augmented by water from sewerage works. How to Save Water, and the Cam posted 9th December 2019
Whist BBC journalist Mark Williamson Tweeted about the Granta/Cam at Grantchester.
The Cam at Grantchester hardly flowing at all – officially it is down by about a third pic.twitter.com/cGqJSHtIoP