Issue - meetings

Councillors Bennett and Thornburrow withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making yet spoke as Ward Councillors.

 

In 2022 a tree work application was received to reduce the height by 5m and spread by 4m of three London Plane trees located within the grounds of St Matthews Centre opposite 193 Sturton Street. This application was refused at committee because of incomplete data supporting the application, the lack of a heave assessment and the lack of information regarding the installation of a root barrier.

 

The current application concerned the same three trees. The Committee received an application to remove (fell) to ground level and to treat stumps preventing regrowth.

 

The Tree Officer updated her report by referring to the amendment sheet:

      i.          An additional representation received from Richard Buxton Solicitors dated 30/10/2023.

     ii.          Pre-Committee amendments to the options provided to Members in the Officer report viz (i) grant consent; or (ii) grant consent subject to conditions; or (iii) refuse consent.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from the Friends of St Matthew’s Piece:

      i.          These 125-year old trees were integral to the unbroken treeline over the only park in the most densely housed ward in Cambridge.

     ii.          They were planted 100 years before 193 Sturton Street was designed, built, bought, rented or insured.

   iii.          The Council formally valued these trees at £200,000. Repair costs were quoted at less than one-tenth of this.

   iv.          It was asserted that there was “tree-related clay-soil shrinkage subsidence”.

    v.          Evaluate the evidence:

a.    The applicant’s data on foundation movement shows the opposite of what should occur if that was taking place.

b.    The applicant claimed the foundations moved most when the trees extracted maximum water.

c.    Instead their data showed a doubling of movement in late December 2022 – an unusually cold month, with weeks of snow. The trees had no leaves, were dormant, so were taking up minimal water (if any).

d.    Whatever caused that movement, it cannot have been the trees.

   vi.          Furthermore:

a.    The application had no information on whether or how the house was built to required standards.

b.    It asserts but provides no evidence of current or ongoing damage.

 vii.          The Case Officer cautions on 'Protected Trees’, in her own website: "The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that tree work is justified and the LPA is not obliged to approve unjustified works".

viii.          Legal input from Richard Buxton Solicitors of Cambridge sent to Members 30 October 2023 clarified there was no need to be bumped into an awful decision. It raised substantive questions and outlined matters that moderate any risk to the Council from continuing to protect these trees.

   ix.          Refusal, followed by serious review and negotiation, minimised Council risks.

    x.          By contrast, any vote to fell these protected, trees would be an irrevocable step that solidified severe risks:

a.    No tree in Cambridge could be safe.

b.    Cambridge would join Sheffield, Plymouth and Wellingborough Councils in negative publicity.

 

Councillor Davey (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.          Had used St Matthew’s Piece for 15 years.

     ii.          Was alarmed to see the tree felling proposal due to their amenity value.

   iii.          Could not see many benefits in felling. This would lead to a loss of canopy cover.

   iv.          Expressed concern:

a.    The trees provided significant amenity value. Their loss would cause significant harm to the appearance, biodiversity, ecology, history and character of the area.

b.    Could not see the logic for felling the trees. They were in place before the development, so home-owners should have been aware of the risks before purchasing 193 Sturton Street.

    v.          The application could set a dangerous precedent for felling trees protected by Tree Protection Orders due to new housing developments. Petersfield in particular had few trees so they should be protected.

 

Councillor Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.          Referred to 193 Sturton Street. When cracks appeared in the rear of the property but not the front, the acacia tree in the garden was suspected to be responsible, not the three London Plane trees located within the grounds of St Matthew’s Centre opposite 193 Sturton Street.

     ii.          The acacia was removed with permission in 2021. Ground heave was suspected as a result of its removal.

   iii.          Problems caused by the removal of the acacia would be exacerbated by the removal of the three London Plane trees.

   iv.          Took issue with the Aboricultural Consultant’s comments as they did not seem to note the impact of removing the three London Plane trees.

    v.          Suggested all risks belonged to the property owner.

 

Councillor Thornburrow (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.          Concerns of Friends of St Matthew’s Piece had not been addressed.

     ii.          The three London Plane trees were part of a group located in a park in the city centre.

   iii.          The trees had significant amenity value, currently and historically.

   iv.          There were biodiversity benefits in having trees of various ages.

    v.          The trees helped to mitigate the effects of climate change.

   vi.          Removing the trees would affect biodiversity, air temperature and air flow in the park as a whole; plus residents’ amenity space.

 vii.          There was a lack of evidence to support the removal of the trees.

 

The Committee Manager read out the following points on behalf of Councillor Tong (Abbey Ward Councillor):

      i.          Understood the legal context under which this case needed to be heard today, but the proposed harm to the trees was absolutely unjustifiable. Something he had spoken about several times over the previous seven months.

     ii.          Prior to the last meeting, he was deluged by emails from residents expressing their anger over the proposal. Their ‘will’ needed to be recognised.

 

Councillor Glasberg (Green & Independent (Spokes) for Communities; Open Spaces and City Services; Climate Action and Environment) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.          The Council had policies to protect trees and the environment.

     ii.          Members would have seen a letter from Richard Buxton Solicitors, who were involved in a lot of similar cases. It seems helpful at this stage to summarise his key points:

a.    The Council did not have enough information confirming costings of repair works or preventative measures (like a root barrier or underpinning) to make any sort of sensible decision here.

b.    There was no information about other possible causes of damage, such as normal seasonal clay shrinkage, to allow compensation liability to be apportioned.

c.    No claim had in fact been made.

d.    It made no sense to do anything until a claim was made against the landowner and the Council then knows its position (the landowner would have some financial responsibility).

e.    The alleged damage to the property was slight.

f.      It was arguable that there was no liability at all where the property was built after the trees had reached maturity – which was plainly the case here.

g.    Overall, the Council should refuse consent now, wait to see if a claim was made, and then deal with it robustly.

 

Councillor Bennett (Abbey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

      i.          Referred to points made by Richard Buxton, Solicitors of Cambridge.

     ii.          If Planning Committee granted consent to fell the trees, the property owner (a Trust, separate to the Applicant) also needed to grant permission to remove the trees.

   iii.          The Applicant could not proceed with tree felling without the tree owner’s permission, so the City Council had no liability.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (6 votes to 0) to reject the application for tree felling and treatment of the stumps preventing regrowth at 193 Sturton Street.

 

The reason for refusal was agreed by 6 votes to 0 with delegated authority to Officers in respect of minor modifications / grammatical errors etc.

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) to refuse the application for the following reason:

 

The proposal requires the felling of three trees of outstanding and special value, both individually and as part of a group. These trees and the wider group of trees on St Matthew’s Piece contribute significantly and positively to public amenity, the urban forest and to the character and appearance of the Mill Road Conservation Area, where special attention must be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character and appearance. The damage associated with the retention of the trees is not considered to outweigh their amenity value (including but not limited to their visual, atmospheric, climate, biodiversity, historic and cultural benefits). A material loss of public amenity value including harm to the Conservation Area, the urban forest and to St Matthew’s Piece - a highly valued protected open space in Petersfield ward which has very limited open space - would arise from their proposed removal. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Cambridge Local Plan policy 61, NPPF 2023 paras.131 and 174, NPPG guidance para. 090 Reference ID: 36-090-20140306 and para. 093 Reference ID: 36-093-20140306, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation, policies and guidance that seek safeguard the environment.