I recently had an application for a Tree Preservation Order rejected on the grounds that “The other benefits the trees provide to wildlife etc are a secondary contribution to justifying a TPO. Without the primary qualifiers any TPO would not be defensible.” It was stated that “the primary qualifiers for consideration are, in reasonable health, structural condition and form and must have an amenity value. For this type of TPO the trees must have a reasonable level of visual amenity value. With no public rights of way running to the east of this part of the village the trees have limited visibility from private residential gardens only.” I hope that this attitude will change, and that environmental benefits can be given much more weight in TPOs.

It is good to see hedgerows included in this. They provide very important wildlife corridors. Hedgerows around developments should be protected from ‘sanitisation’, and wherever possible occasional trees along hedgerows should be preserved or replaced. Brambles and nettles are good for wildlife, as is deadwood.

The “Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping Final Report (2021)” is an excellent document. While I am pleased to see “Farmland near Balsham Wood (call for green sites)” highlighted here, note that this would require funding. Cambridge PPF stated in their response to the call for sites that “The only constraint for further development as a “green site” is the requirement to offset the loss of income generated from the lease of farmland. In other words the land would either have to be purchased or leased from us for use as a green site or there would need to be an ongoing compensatory payment.”