BG/TC: Improving Tree Canopy Cover and the Tree Population

A more strategic plan is required rather than a scattergun approach- as per planning application. A new community forest/strategic plan is needed with allocated sites for tree belts/mini forests within sub areas of the district. Gamlingay proposes a necklace of mini forests surrounding the parish to link with existing ancient woodland habitats, which can provide wildlife corridors ( 8 Western Gateway area)

I welcome the focus of Policy BG/TC: Improving Tree Canopy Cover and the Tree Population in the local plan, and support all the objectives.
There is a tendency in the national discussion of climate change to see tree planting as a panacea for tackling global warming, and in the past this has led to planting the wrong species in the wrong places, to the detriment of other crucial habitats. My reading is that Policy BG/TC avoids such errors, and I welcome this.
I also particularly welcome Objective 3: ‘protect existing hedgerows and the surrounding land that supports them, and to plant new ones where appropriate’ as this is especially relevant to improving the farmed landscape of so much of Greater Cambridge. As the local plan progresses, this objective should be strengthened with concrete proposals about how it can be achieved in practice. For example, funding is available both to organisations and community groups to support hedgerow planting, as well as to land managers through the new Environmental Land Management scheme.

John Meed, December 2021

Definitely. This should be a requirement incorporated into all new development.

The Trumpington Residents' Association supports the need to develop and maintain the tree and hedgerow network. we note the importance of maintaining trees after they have been planted in new developments, given the neglect that has been shown to the planting along Addenbrooke's Road, Hobson's Park and in the Southern Fringe developments.

The Wildlife Trust supports the inclusion of this policy and the suggested scope of it.

• protect existing hedgerows and the surrounding land that supports them, and to require the planting of new ones where appropriate .
• Encourage better maintenance by hedge owners and reduce spraying or cutting at wrong time.
• Hedges, which are part of the recognised Character of an area and streetscape or public realm in a Conservation area, cannot be removed to allow for more parking of cars, bins or cycles.
• Wooden fencing or metal fencing is not a viable substitute for natural hedges and permanently changes and harms the character of the area.
•

It is considered that a more flexible approach be applied to a policy on trees and there is a need to balance the priority for tree planting alongside the provision of sustainable development. Applicants for development proposals should be encouraged to protect tree populations and hedgerows on site and provide appropriate replacement planting where felling is necessary but tree protection should not be at the expense of the provision of housing. There will be instances where the health of existing trees does not warrant their retention and replacement planting will be a benefit to scheme proposals.

It is considered that a more flexible approach be applied to a policy on trees and there is a need to balance the priority for tree planting alongside the provision of sustainable development. Applicants for development proposals should be encouraged to protect tree populations and hedgerows on site and provide appropriate replacement planting where felling is necessary but tree protection should not be at the expense of the provision of housing. There will be instances where the health of existing trees does not warrant their retention and replacement planting will be a benefit to scheme proposals.

Fully support as lonf as irrigation and maintenance or areas and trees are built into this policy.

Huntingdonshire District Council support the proposed policy 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 and that the policy supports provision of species resilient to anticipated climate change.

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.”

Supported

We support this policy.
Where tree management requires felling or hedgerow removal, require replacement. Policy should recognize the Forestry Commission Woodland Priority Habitat Network, Natural England Priority Habitat Network Woodland and Natural England National Forest Inventory and preserve and protect these areas.

I support the policy of improving tree canopy cover and protecting existing hedgerows and the surrounding land that supports them. I would like to see this policy applied to the S/EOC/GB2 development to maintain the green hedgerow and tree lined footpath along Worts Causeway rather than potentially replacing with a footpath past the edge of a housing development.

The policy should explicitly refer to use of native species, of local provenance where tree planting or hedge is proposed, subject only to considerations of climate change on long-term viability.
The policy should encourage, where appropriate, planting scrub species so recognising the importance of this habitat for "farmland" birds; the policy should be clear that woodland species are not always appropriate nor desirable.

4.35. As per the aims of Policy BG/TC, it is certainly beneficial to increase tree and woodland cover from 7.4% to 19% by the 2050s, but care should also be taken in determining how/if this approach is consistent with maximising net biodiversity gains. For example, it is known that peat bog, bramble scrub and lowland meadows have a greater value in biodiversity than blanket tree cover. A mosaic of habitat creation is therefore preferred over blanket tree cover with the range of habitats determined by a clear understanding of the existing habitat value and potential of the location.

I fully support improved tree cover in the city and agree tree cover is a major weakness in the area and in the UK in general. I am worried, however, that this is a ‘low priority goal’, where development and housing will, as always, pre-empt this and lead not only to lower levels of planting but also to felling. I believe we should be establishing specific requirements for tree canopy cover in new development areas, because developers are likely to choose less expensive landscaping and claim it’s for ‘biodiversity provision’. I also think we should set targets for improving tree populations in the rest of the city.

We fully support the idea of developing tree cover in the city, but is it a priority goal for development of housing, it needs to be prioritised. Also, developers are quite like to fell big trees and plant small ones - this needs a long-term vision.

There should be an objective measure for tree canopy cover, and a method of measurement. Suitable metrics and targets are not hard to find: the UK’s forestry Commission suggests urban targets of 20% canopy cover in its website :https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/tree-canopy-cover-leaflet/

Tree planting and additional tree canopy is extremely important, but this policy must avoid cheap, poorly planned tree planting. Trees of the wrong species, planted in the wrong places, can exacerbate climate issues. This policy needs to support tree planting that is consistent with the local ecological conditions, and must put greater emphasis on the need to recover and restore existing woodland areas, as these are very much more valuable in terms of carbon sequestration and biodiversity.

strong support

Marshall appreciates the strategic ambitions to increase tree cover within Cambridge and wider Cambridgeshire more generally. Tree and hedgerow planting are therefore a fundamental part of the Cambridge East proposals including within the green corridor, the developed areas themselves (including through the provision of street trees), and possibly from carbon sequestration elsewhere in Cambridgeshire. Given also that trees within the airfield occur rarely, there is significant potential for major gain.

We support the policy intention to:
- Preserve, protect and increase the amount and distribution of tree canopy cover
- Protect and enhance the tree population on site
- Protect existing trees of value
- Protect existing hedgerows and the surrounding land that supports them, and to require the planting of new ones where appropriate
- Provide sufficient space above and below ground for trees and other vegetation to mature; and
- Provide appropriate replacement tree or hedgerow planting, where felling is proved necessary.

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.

TMLC supports the provision of new woodland within landscape lead masterplans for new development. Trumpington South affords a significant opportunity to appreciably increase tree canopy cover and tree numbers within the Green Belt.

I strongly support this policy, especially given that the current level of depletion of the chalk aquifer combined with several consecutive dry summers has adversely affected the health of trees in my immediate area, most especially conifers. I would be in favour of proposals along the lines of Cambridge Great Park.

We generally support the policy to improve tree canopy cover and the tree population. This notwithstanding, the proposed policy direction does not allow for site specific allocations or constraints, where a balanced planning judgement should be advocated. Moreover, the policy direction requires in the first and second bullets, the preservation, protection of both the tree population and tree canopy cover on sites, whilst the third bullet point seeks the protection of existing trees of value. In order to provide clarity, the policy direction should make it explicit that trees of value should be protected as opposed to the blanket protection of all tree cover on sites. This comment is made in the interests of securing sustainable development and making the most efficient use of sites, especially those that are previously developed, in sustainable locations. This in turn, will assist in reducing the amount of greenfield land released for housing and other uses.

Furthermore, the policy direction does not make allowance of the ‘planning balance’, and the policy directions and guidance provided elsewhere within the emerging Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance, for example making the most efficient use of land and providing development that maintains and enhances its surrounding character, including the street frontage design, highway network improvements.

Moreover, the policy direction is considered (site specific circumstances) to conflict with the policy direction requirements of Policy GP/QD, especially where sites are bordered by trees (value dependent)where for example, “buildings are required to be orientated to provide natural surveillance and maximise opportunities to create active ground floor uses”.

In this respect, it is considered that text as contained within the opening paragraph of Policy 71 of the adopted Local Plan should be carried across to the emerging policy.

The RSPB support the policy direction outlined and we agree with a policy that supports additional tree planting and canopy cover in developments without setting particular targets (as appropriate provision will vary depending on the site). We believe that the policy will need to require developers to assess suitability of planting to ensure we achieve the right tree in the right place – so for example to preclude planting on inappropriate soils (ie: peat) and/or planting of species that may not be suited to the changed climate envelope when they mature. There are also obvious links and benefits here to achieving biodiversity policy gains by planting native species as a preference.

The National Trust supports this policy but feels it should be stronger in encouraging the provision of new woodland of locally appropriate species. This is linked to the Trust’s commitment to plant and establish 20 million trees in the next 10 years across an area of 18,000 ha throughout the UK.

We are currently exploring options and opportunities across Cambridgeshire. We consider that local planning authorities should work with relevant partners to identify and support a county wide tree planting ambition for inclusion in the Local Plan. There are real opportunities in the south west of the area to create some great woodland. For example, West Cambs Hundreds and out towards Wimpole as per the Cambridge Nature Network plans.

Cambourne Town Council understands the need for this policy as it addresses the aims contained in the vision.