Campaigners outraged at proposal to fell mature trees in Cambridge

Residents have been campaigning to save three mature plane trees at St Matthew’s Piece in Cambridge after an application has been made to have them felled.

The owner of a house on Sturton Street opposite the park has reported that “slight” cracks in the walls of the building have been caused by the trees.

However, campaigners dispute this and are demanding that instead a root protection system should be installed around the trees to prevent any damage to the house, which they point out was built many years after the trees were planted. This, however, could cost the homeowner £80,000.

Last year an application to cut back the trees was made, but it was rejected by Cambridge City Council.

Dr Valerie Neal, spokesperson for Friends of St Matthew’s Piece said: “I’m overjoyed and delighted by the support we have received - it’s been wonderful. The number of objections to this on the city council’s planning portal show the strength of feeling.There isn't a single human being in this area who doesn't say that those trees need protecting.

“I think people are furious that this has come up again, especially given the trees are subject to a Tree Protection Order.”

Residents say the greenery and shade offered by the trees is vital as St Matthew’s Piece is the only green space in Petersfield, whereas there are 56 official parks in Cambridge’s other 13 wards.

The trees were there long before the houses. Demanding these trees are removed is like building your house in a bog and then demanding the bog is drained to protect your foundations

City councillor Katie Thornburrow (Lab, Petersfield) said: “Like many other residents, and residents’ groups, I do not believe there is a case for removing these wonderful trees, which add so much to the sense of being in nature that St Matthew’s Piece brings. The park has been part of this neighbourhood since 1898, and we want it to retain its character, especially since Petersfield has so few large open spaces. The trees, which lie in a conservation area, are already protected by tree preservation orders, so we should expect any application to cut them down to pass a very high bar - I have not seen any evidence that persuades me that this is the case.”

The reason for the application to fell the trees has been given as “clay shrinkage subsidence damage” at a property on Sturton Street. Campaigners say an alternative to felling the three plane trees would be for the the homeowners to install a tree root barrier to prevent the roots causing subsidence.

A report for the applicant's insurance company states: “The results of the site investigations confirm that the cause of subsidence is root-induced clay shrinkage. The clay is plastic and thus will shrink and swell with changes in moisture content. Roots have extracted moisture below the depth of the footings, thus causing differential foundation movement to occur.”

Cllr Hannah Copley (Green, Abbey) said she would welcome the root barrier as a solution, which it is thought would cost the applicant around £80,000, adding: “Recently, after a high profile case, a root barrier was agreed for similar trees in Alexandra Gardens. We put it to the applicant that a root barrier represents an excellent solution to their concern regarding damage by the tree roots to the property. It has been reported that the installation of the root barrier took only a few weeks and that the result is a well finished road of good surface.”

The city council has received more than 60 objections to the proposal.

In one, a Chesterton Road resident said: “The trees were there long before the houses. Demanding these trees are removed is like building your house in a bog and then demanding the bog is drained to protect your foundations.”

And an objector from Gwydir Street said: “When is a Tree Preservation Order not a Tree Preservation Order? Apparently, whenever a new planning application is submitted calling for a tree to be cropped, felled or other damage done. Yet again, three of the magnificent plane trees that surround St Matthew’s Piece are threatened, this time with felling.

“How many times does our community have to rally to the defence of these trees, identified by the previous aboricultural officer, Diana Oviatt-Ham, for their ‘especial significance of individual trees and in a group which should not be compromised by development’. All the trees on St Matthew's Piece have been protected by individual TPOs since 2005. This application is an extraordinary waste of everyone’s time and energy. However, the alternative suggestion of a root barrier should be considered at the applicant’s expense.”