Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 58698

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future

Representation Summary:

CambridgePPF support the intent and policy direction. It should be recognised that in some locations other habitats have priority over trees.

Full text:

The overall intent and policy direction of this policy is welcomed and supported. Protection of existing trees and hedgerows, particularly those of special quality, is especially important.

It is important that the draft Plan or supporting information highlights that trees and woodland are NOT priority habitats in a number of locations in Greater Cambridge, as set out in the Cambridge Nature Network (http://cambridgenaturenetwork.org/). In these locations other habitat types should be prioritized over woodland in the first instance. This includes meadows, fens, wetlands and scrub. The area where woodland creation is prioritised is mainly to the west of Cambridge.

We support retaining existing hedgerows but when creating new habitat it is important to consider that hedgerows are not necessarily better than other linear habitat types in helping to provide ecological connectivity, and therefore in certain locations creating alternative types of linear habitat may be more beneficial – for example a series of ponds or a linear wildflower meadow. This should be reflected in the draft Plan.

The significant amount of space that is required to enable large tree species to reach full maturity, as well as arboricultural costs associated with large trees, means that most new developments now plant tree species which are much smaller when they reach maturity (eg rowan, birch, whitebeam, etc). The benefits of these trees is much lower in terms of urban cooling, urban flooding, sequestering carbon and public amenity (and possibly biodiversity). There is a risk therefore that the benefits of trees within developments is overstated compared to what is actually being delivered. We would like you to consider how this can be addressed (for example a requirement to plant more trees if they are of smaller varieties; or a requirement that a % of new trees are of larger species).

We also note that the supporting text indicates that ‘We recognise that in some instances felling of existing trees or hedgerows may be necessary to meet wider placemaking objectives.’ and look forward to more detail and discussion on how and when the latter will be applied to justify tree and hedgerow removal.