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
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
Fenner’s cricket ground faces threat from student block Residents fear the three-storey block could spell the end of cricket at the home ground of Cambridge University Cricket Club Laurence Sleator, The Times, June 13 2024 (£)
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 againat severe 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.
SUGGESTED OBJECTIONS
You will have good reasons of your own but here are some extra suggestions:
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).
Cutting the roots at that location would destroy up to 26.5% of the three trees’ essential RPAs.
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.
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.)
Petersfield has a particularly poor tree canopy, with very few mature trees.
Every tree matters in Petersfield, which suffers badly from the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect’.
Each of these 126-year-old Plane Trees has a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), and is in our Conservation Area.
These trees are vital to the wellbeing of every person who lives, works or studies in our community
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).
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.
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 enymystaikesany 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.
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 emailfriends.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!
A planning application for quadrupling the height and mass of the Grafton Centre has attracted far less attention and comment than the parallel one for the Beehive site. Almost none. But it would have comparable impact on the Mill Road Conservation Area environment, including the ‘green lung’ of St Matthew’s Piece. Read/download the documentation on the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Portal, here.
The applicant’s Landscape And Public Realm statements fail to mention that the proposed structures would look directly into the residential housing estate, on the opposite side of East Road (from south to north – Amblecote, Fazeley House, Shenstone House, Wheaton House, Hilderstone House, and the new housing, under construction on the site of the former garages). Views shown from the proposed structure’s roof terrace reveal just how much the building will dominate the skyscape from much of central Cambridge. See the documentation on the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Portal.
There has been no consultation in the Mill Road Conservation Area, although the views from so many of these homes and streets would be dramatically impacted by substantial changes to the skyline from this enormous development.
The dramatic graphics (above), in addition to those in the Friends of St Matthew’s Piece submitted objection, show the existing vs minimum heights of the structures proposed in Planning Application 23/02685/FUL. The actual impact would be even worse, as the footprint also expands, and the height of the proposed structures rise to 41m. If we add in flues and vents, which (as revealed in the Beehive application) can rise to 25% againof these building heights, these proposals will dominate the skyline over a wide area of the city’s Petersfield ward.
To make clear what this means for residents of the Mill Road Conservation Area, not one of whom was at any stage informed of or consulted on these proposals, a technically adept Friend of St Matthew’s Piece has taken the developer’s precise figures from today’s new image and made an animated gif to show what the Old vs New Grafton Centre would look like, combining (a) info from this most recent image from the developer with (b) the image the developer provided on p.33 of their Design & Access Survey of the existing “low level” Grafton Centre…
The formal comment deadline for Planning Application 23/02685/FUL passed on Tuesday 28th November 2023. However public comments can still be uploaded to the the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Portal – and will be taken into account – right up until the date of the Cambridge City Council Planning Committee meeting at which this application will be considered, which has not yet been scheduled.
More about Friends 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 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.
Blogposts on other issues concerning 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.
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.
The three threatened trees on St Matthew’s Piece
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 three trees under threat on St Matthew’s Piece Trees
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.
