Campaigners tell of ‘joy’ after latest application to fell 125-year-old Sturton Street trees in Cambridge is rejected again
Three 125-year-old trees have been saved again from being chopped down.
City councillors have rejected an application to fell the London Plane trees at St Matthew’s Centre, which have been described as “amongst the most glorious in Cambridge” by campaigners.
The application had been put forward by the insurance company for 193 Sturton Street due to concerns about the trees causing subsidence at the house.
But objectors questioned whether the trees are actually causing ongoing damage to the property and urged councillors to save them.
Three previous applications have been made in relation to the same 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. This was refused by the city council due to a lack of information to back up the 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. But the application was again refused by councillors.
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 required.
Officers told councillors at a planning committee meeting last Wednesday (25 June) that the latest application to cut down the trees did not provide any additional information about the damage to the house.
But council 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 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.
More than 100 objections were raised to the application and a number of objectors attended the meeting.
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 has cancer and shared fears cutting down the trees could lead to more people’s health being impacted.
“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,” she said.
The Friends of St Matthew’s Piece group questioned whether the trees are actually causing ongoing damage to 193 Sturton Street.
Aided by donations from local residents towards a fighting fund in defence of the trees, they presented councillors with a new report from a structural engineer, which did not show a link between the trees and cracking in the house.
The report, from Philip Cooper, of Cambridge Architectural Research, found the “slight” cracking from 2019 to be stable and concluded it was caused not by foundation movement, clay, or tree roots but by normal changes in the masonry. It argued the insurer should pay for suitable inexpensive repairs and that underpinning, using a piled raft, was not warranted. To blame the plane trees for these minor signs of movement is simply wrong,” said the report, which explained that felling the trees would probably make matters worse due to heave.
A letter from the Friends’ solicitors to the council also argued it would be “essential for the council to be fully and independently informed, to assess the merits of the claim”, rather than relying on documents supplied by the applicant.
Cllr Elliot Tong (Green, Abbey) questioned whether continued damage was being caused and claimed the cracks 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.”
Cllr Richard Robertson (Lab, Petersfield) questioned the financial risk to the city council if it refused permission. He said any claim for compensation would have to show the trees were causing “continued nuisance” for reasonable costs to be recoverable.
Cllr Mike Davey (Lab, Petersfield) said there was no evidence to suggest the committee should change the decision it made a few years ago to refuse the application. He also argued the cracks had not grown and said there was “simply not enough damage to warrant underpinning”.
Cllr Katie Thornburrow (Lab, Petersfield) said having visited the site she did not think the damage had got any worse since 2019.
Cllr Martin Smart (Lab, King’s Hedges) echoed this and said he could not “see a great deal of difference” to the cracks.
Cllr Davie Baigent (Lab, Romsey) said all the evidence presented 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.”
The planning committee agreed unanimously to refuse the application to cut the three trees down.
Afterwards, Dr Valerie Neal, from the Friends group, said: “The joy and relief on hearing that our irreplaceable trees had been unanimously defended by the planning committee was overwhelming. The new report by the eminent independent structural engineer had clearly played a pivotal role for the committee, as it highlighted so many fundamental flaws not only in the applicant’s evidence but also in the extremely weak arguments built upon it. The robust new letter from Richard Buxton, a prominent planning and environmental lawyer, consolidated this beautifully.
“The clarity of the entire community’s tireless and repeated submissions on the superb trees of St Matthew’s Piece has been crucial too. We are deeply grateful for the powerful advocacy at committee and elsewhere by city councillors Tong, Glasberg, Robertson and Davey – together demonstrating the tremendous value placed on these historic trees across the whole of Cambridge.”
Additional reporting: Paul Brackley
