Question 15. Do you agree that we should aim to increase tree cover across the area?
The University supports increasing the area of tree cover in the area providing it is of a diversity of native species, planted in the appropriate places. We would not wish to see trees replace native grassland habitats in the region, some of which hold important populations of locally and nationally important species.
No uploaded files for public display
Provided that additional tree cover is in suitable locations for example extensive tree planting within the Fens may be detrimental to the landscape character and carbon capture efficiency of the peatlands.
No uploaded files for public display
Agree - but if you are proposing the equivalent of three more Northstowe size developments before 2040 then where are you going to plant trees - and where will our food be grown?
No uploaded files for public display
appropriate tree species for water use/climate change/biodiversity. Need a variety of species and shrubs too. Covenants on new trees removal/management.
No uploaded files for public display
Selection of the right sites and species mix is very important. Don't attempt to afforest sites which are already significant carbon sinks. Need to decide how new woodland will be managed. It could be left completely wild, coppiced for products and gladed habitat, or left to mature and eventually harvested for timber. Hopefully we will see all these approaches locally. I think it's fine for some new woodland to be managed for woodland products, providing sustainable jobs and sequestering carbon in long-lasting buildings and furniture. For the completely wild approach, it is simplest to fence out deer, humans et al and leave the land to regenerate naturally. However we would achieve faster carbon sequestration by intentionally planting some tree species at least.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Trees can usefully separate transport lanes - eg bike lanes
No uploaded files for public display
Tree cover should be expanded in as many ways as possible across Greater Cambridge. This should include the expansion of existing woodland areas e.g. Milton Country Park and the development of new areas e.g. a 'Cambridge Forest' as part of the Marshalls Airport site.
No uploaded files for public display
Current government incentives for new woodland will meet the costs of planting but not provide alternative sources of income. The proposed ELM schemes, intended by Defra to replace Basic Payment Scheme over the next seven years, leaves farmers and landowners planting trees and enhancing biodiversity with a funding gap, not least because payments are based on income forgone and costs incurred, and do not allow a profit element. To profit from woodland planting and management, farmers and landowners need to be able to secure additional income from carbon and biodiversity offsets, maybe for allowing additional access. Without this, new publicly accessible green spaces will not be widely provided. In addition, new green space needs to be linked, including to areas of new development where additional access will be most needed, and new biodiversity needs to be on a landscape scale (as called for in the Lawton report) and to provide wildlife corridors if it is to be effective. The best way to provide new green spaces, including woodland planting where appropriate, is through co-ordinated action involving all tiers of local government working with landowners and estates, farmers and owners of small areas of open land in a particular area. The model for this already exists in the form of community forests, promoted by the Forestry Commission in conjunction with local planning authorities in areas where landscape enhancement and additional green space is needed. There are three community forests in East of England, there is a strong case for an addition community forest in the Greater Cambridge area, for instance covering land to the South and East of Cambridge (including the proposed area of the "Cambridge Great Park"). The objective of a new community forest would be to secure approximately 20% woodland cover together with new public access and enhanced biodiversity, to include much of the green belt to the South East of Cambridge, thus strengthening the case for the green belt and improving its long-term effectiveness in both preventing urban sprawl and masking some of the urban sprawl which has already taken place.
No uploaded files for public display
Grosvenor is supportive of the Councils aim to increase tree cover and is committed to providing a 10% increase over existing provision on site. Tree cover provides significant habitat potential and the potential to also sequester carbon emissions, contributing to the Councils zero carbon targets and restoring the regions natural climax vegetation. Public access to woodlands also has the potential to contribute to a community’s wellbeing, through diversified amenity offer and improved tranquillity. New tree planting should be appropriate to its location, sensitive to a locality’s landscape characteristics and comprise species tolerant of more severe weather events.
No uploaded files for public display
As mentioned previously, we agree that tree planting and woodland creation is key to tackling both the climate and biodiversity emergencies. It is also worth bearing in mind that natural regeneration can have an important role to play in certain circumstances.....for example in creating woodland on land adjacent to existing woods and in creating an understorey under existing trees. As also previously mentioned, we would like to see the Local Plan include targets for tree planting, expanding tree canopy cover or improving access to woodland.
No uploaded files for public display
There should be an increase of tree cover in Cambridge – providing a range of native species will encourage habitats to develop and will support the need to meet net biodiversity gain.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. This could be at both individual site development level and on a more strategic basis e.g. creation of major new woodlands. Biodiversity net gain can be achieved through the pooling of financial contributions to achieve such objectives. Again, this could also have the benefit of improving public access to high quality open spaces and supporting healthier communities.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, this can make a significant contribution to: -Flood risk management, by reducing run-off and water removal via evapotranspiration. This is especially effective in clay catchments. -Shading waterbodies that overheat in the summer, depleting oxygen to harmful levels for wildlife -Improving water quality, with the right kind of trees. -Biodiversity and related corridors and climate resilience. However, trees can also reduce water resources, especially in chalk catchments. There should be overlap between the Local Nature Recovery Strategies and Integrated Water Management studies to get this balance right.
No uploaded files for public display
The HCT would welcome a Local Plan policy for the protection and enhancement of tree cover as part of a strategic, integrated approach towards the maintenance and enhancement of Greater Cambridge’s landscape character. Tree cover is a valued asset both for Nine Wells and for Hobson’s Brook. Trees form an important aspect of the character of their landscape, particularly at Nine Wells and some stretches of the brook. At present the trees of Nine Wells and Hobson’s Brook are only given protection within the Brookside Conservation Area and the Nine Wells Local Nature Reserve. The HCT would welcome an extension to this protection to cover the whole of the brook.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. Support the Tree Strategy and its extension to South Cambridgeshire District The amount and type of trees are important, but of co-equal importance is their care and aftercare. Sufficient land needs to be designated in larger developments to allow space for climax tree species to be planted. Tree belts on the edges of fields and existing urban areas are a means of providing biodiversity connectivity and screening
No uploaded files for public display
• We should aim to increase tree cover by planting trees in a way that complements cycling, creating safe, attractive and tree-lined routes.
No uploaded files for public display
Tree cover in the Fens seems to be as unnatural as cultivating bats in big housing developments. A tree is each new garden is desirable; attempts to create mini-forests of non-native tree species seems wrong.
No uploaded files for public display
Strongly support increasing tree cover, but not at the expense of high grade agricultural land. Strongly support.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, definitely. Some ideas are: • We should aim to increase tree cover by planting trees in a way that complements cycling, creating safe, attractive and tree-lined routes. • Cycleways separated from car lanes by trees or shrubbery are ideal and Camcycle would support more of this.
No uploaded files for public display
This is absolutely essential and a priority in my opinion
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. The A14 improvements have decimated tree life in the area and we have yet to see if Highways England will come good on their promise to re-plant.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes.
No uploaded files for public display
More trees, parks, a commitment to a percentage net increase in biodiversity, rewilding, animalhabitat enhancement (e.g. requiring every new or replacement fence to have holes big enough for small-mammal passage) should be required in every single planning application, from the biggest development down to the smallest domestic extension. Front- and rear-garden green spaces should be protected from paving and car parking; the Green Belt should be retained, and landowners encouraged to rewild and manage the habitat for maximum biodiversity and species health
No uploaded files for public display
Absolutely: urban tree planting can be of great benefit in segregating cycle lanes from motor vehicle lanes. But please let's do this in a way that doesn't see tree roots damaging cycle lanes - they can manage this in the Netherlands, surely we can do it here too!
No uploaded files for public display
• We should aim to increase tree cover by planting trees in a way that complements cycling, creating safe, attractive and tree-lined routes. • Cycleways separated from car lanes by trees or shrubbery are ideal and Camcycle would support more of this.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes
No uploaded files for public display