"Glorious" Cambridge trees saved for second time
Cambridge City Council has refused to grant permission to fell the three trees at St Matthews Centre
Three trees that have been described as “amongst the most glorious in Cambridge” have been saved from being chopped down for a second time.
Cambridge City Council has refused to grant permission to fell three London Plane trees at St Matthews Centre.
The application to chop the trees down had been put forward by the insurance company for 193 Sturton Street, due to concerns about the trees causing subsidence at the house.
However, objectors questioned whether the trees are actually causing ongoing damage to the property and urged councillors not to allow the 125-year-old trees to be cut down.
Three previous applications have been made in relation to these three trees in recent years.
In 2022 an application was submitted to reduce the height of the trees due to alleged subsidence at 193 Sturton Street, but this was refused by the city council due to a lack of information to back up this claim.
The following year an application was submitted to cut down the trees, with more information provided to support the subsidence claim.
This evidence was also assessed by an independent structural engineer who agreed that there was a link between the trees and the damage to the house.
This application was also refused by the city council after councillors said they did not want to see the trees cut down.
In 2024 a third application was submitted, this time to install a root barrier, but this application was also refused due to concerns about the risk of harm to the tree’s health from the excavations to install the barrier.
Officers told councillors at a planning committee meeting this week (June 25) that the latest application to cut down the trees did not provide any additional information about the damage to the house.
However, officers said they were satisfied from the evidence they had that there was a “causal link between the damage to the building and the trees”.
Officers explained that if the city council refused permission to cut down the trees it could face a compensation claim and might have to pay for underpinning work to the house.
They added that information provided by the applicant claimed the cost of this work had increased from when previous applications were submitted to £306,500.
Officers said the value of the trees was “undisputed”, but that councillors needed to balance this value with the risk of facing a possible compensation claim.
A number of objectors came to the meeting to urge the city council not to allow the trees to be cut down.
Tony told the meeting that the three trees were “amongst the most glorious in Cambridge”.
He said: “At 125-years-old they can’t be replaced in the lifetime of anyone here.
“They have a right to respect and to be where they are. They make a substantial contribution to human wellbeing, improving air quality, and providing shade.”
Charlotte, another objector, said the trees help reduce air pollution in the area.
She raised concerns about the impact of particulate pollution from cars on people’s health.
Charlotte told the meeting that she had cancer, and shared fears cutting down the trees could lead to more people’s health being impacted.
She said: “The three trees that are facing death, or may face death on St Matthew’s Piece are doing a good job in reducing the impact of particulate matter.”
The group Friends of St Matthew’s Piece questioned whether the trees are actually causing ongoing damage to 193 Sturton Street.
They presented councillors with a new structural engineers report, which they said did not show a link between the trees and cracking in the house.
Councillor Elliot Tong also questioned whether continued damage was being caused and claimed the cracks in the house did not look any bigger than in the photos taken of them in 2019.
He said: “That is not continuing damage, it is poor maintenance.”
Councillor Richard Robertson questioned the financial risk to the city council if it refused permission for the trees to be cut down.
He said any claim for compensation would have to show the trees were causing “continued nuisance” for reasonable costs to be recoverable.
Councillor Mike Davey said there was no evidence to suggest the committee should change the decision it made a few years ago to refuse the application to cut down the trees.
He also argued the cracks in the house had not changed and said there was “simply not enough damage to warrant underpinning and to blame plane trees is simply wrong.”
The planning committee agreed unanimously to refuse the application to cut the three trees down.
Councillor Katie Thornburrow said having visited the site she did not think the damage had got any worse since 2019.
Councillor Martin Smart echoed this and said he could not “see a great deal of difference” to the cracks.
Councillor Davie Baigent said all the evidence presented to the committee gave “no absolute indication of why these cracks have appeared”.
He said: “These trees have got to stay, I do not care if the whole road is falling down, these trees have got to stay.”