Delight as councillors vote to protect St Matthew’s Piece trees in Cambridge

Campaigners are delighted that councillors have voted for a third time to protect trees at St Matthew’s Piece in Cambridge, which faced a new threat from a new application to cut a deep trench and install a root barrier.

The proposal was intended to remove and prevent the regrowth of roots close to 193 Sturton Street to protect the property from damage and subsidence.

The application – like the two before it for pruning and felling – was made by the company insuring the 1997 property, a house in multiple occupation (HMO).

But the Friends of St Matthew’s Pieces group objected strongly to measures that could damage the large plane trees, which date back to about 1898.

Council officers agreed the trees were of “significant” value but recommended approving the plans, warning councillors that they could face a compensation claim in future to cover the estimated £120,000 cost of underpinning the property if they refuse permission for the root barrier and further damage occurs.

Tree experts Ben Cijffers and Katherine Holland, and resident Valerie Neal, told councillors root loss caused by the proposed trench would increase the trees’ vulnerability to drought and wind.

They pointed out the trench would significantly increase the risk to the St Matthew’s Piece trees of disease and threaten their long-term survival.

Slight cracks were reported at the house in 2019, but the campaigners pointed out that the 1997 house has deep concrete foundations, unlike its Victorian neighbours, so should be the last not the first and only one to display signs of subsidence.

They argued the plans were aimed at “the fanciful elimination of unevidenced nuisance”.

Cllr Elliot Tong (Green, Abbey) pointed to the trees’ importance in tackling the consequences of the climate and biodiversity crises, while Cllr Richard Robertson noted they reduce the urban heat island effect.

Council leader Cllr Mike Davey (Lab, Petersfield) stressed the trees’ value in the Conservation Area on the mental and physical health of residents of all ages.

Chair Cllr Martin Smart (Lab, King’s Hedges) said: “We are being encouraged as a committee to think about that cost both in terms of our council and for all councils in the UK and the cost of claims like this.

“The number one thing in my mind is the trees. They are the most important thing here. And it seems to me that, in order to protect the trees completely, then we would want not to dig a trench.”

After councillors voted to reject the application, he added: “The decision by this committee… does not mean that we are accepting liability for the cost of underpinning said property with concrete. I believe that’s to be decided in the future.

“We as a council and committee, the planning authority, have protected these trees. We have not chopped them down. And I believe that the council and residents will continue to do that. So I hope the applicant is listening to that. And we intend to protect these trees in any way we can, going forward.”

Afterwards, Wendy Blythe, chair of the Federation of Cambridge Residents' Associations (FeCRA), praised the work of the campaigners, describing it as a “great team effort” and “Cambridge at its best”.