A protection order has been granted for a number of orchard trees threatened by plans to build a new busway to Cambridge. The provisional Tree Protection Order (TPO) grants extra protection to the trees, but could be overridden if approval is granted for the Cambourne to Cambridge (C2C) busway.
An application was submitted to South Cambridgeshire District Council asking for the protection order to cover 12 Bramley apple trees in Coton Orchard. Those calling for the protection order highlighted the importance of the trees to the environment and biodiversity in the area, as well as pointing out their recognition as veteran trees by the Woodland Trust.
The trees are in the route of the proposed C2C busway, a project put together by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP). A Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) application was submitted to the Department for transport last year to ask for permission to build the busway.
The scheme has faced backlash over the years, particularly around the plans to build the off-road busway through Coton Orchard. Some people have argued that an on-road option along Madingley Road should be pursued instead. Officers at the district council had originally recommended that the provisional TPO was not granted for the 12 Bramley apple trees, as the order could be “overruled” if permission for the busway was granted.
It was suggested that the protection and future security of the apple trees and wider site could be “better advanced through consultation on the precise alignment of the guided busway route through the orchard in an attempt to save the best trees from destruction”.
However, Councillor Heather Williams, who submitted the application for the TPO, told a planning committee meeting this week (January 15), that the idea of not granting a protection order because of something that might happen in the future would mean no TPOs would ever be granted. She said she hoped councillors would want “to do everything they could to protect these ancient trees and the wildlife and biodiversity that stems from it”.
Anna Gazeley, whose family owns Coton Orchard, argued it was “illogical” to refuse to protect something because it was at risk. She also said that it was “not accurate” to assume the busway was “inevitable” and argued it was “far from a done deal”, highlighting opposition to the plans from people who are “actively challenging the proposal”.
Ms Gazeley said: “While it is true that a TPO alone cannot guarantee the trees survival, it is a vital tool in the arsenal for protecting them. To refuse to protect something simply because it may still face risk is illogical. The loss of these trees would have a significant impact on both the local environment and biodiversity at a global level. These trees support a delicate ecosystem including species listed as globally threatened, removing them would contribute to the erosion of biodiversity and undermine the ecological health of the region.”
Ms Gazeley said the TPO may not be the only solution to saving the trees, but said the protection order would be a “critical step towards ensuring these trees are preserved for generations to come”. Councillor Dr Martin Cahn asked if Ms Gazeley would object to the trees being taken up and planted elsewhere in the orchard, if the busway went ahead.
Ms Gazeley said the trees could not simply be dug up and planted elsewhere as she said they would “just die”. She said that the age of the trees made them fragile and explained that they also had a “complex rooting system” that meant they could not “just scoop one out”.
Councillor Peter Fane said he would consider the application “purely on the merits of the trees”. He recognised the “enormous value” of the trees to people in the area and the fact the trees qualified for protection. Cllr Fane said it was “quite clear” to him that the committee should grant the protection order. Councillor Dr Richard Williams said he “could not agree more” with what Cllr Fane had said.
He highlighted that the order would also offer extra protection to the trees not in the direct line of the proposed busway. He said: “As pointed out, the trees themselves merit protections, we have established the TPO will remain even if the busway goes ahead, it will remain on the unaffected trees. There is a risk to the other trees because they could be damaged in construction of the busway and serving the TPO would be a way of protecting those other trees should it go ahead.”
Cllr Cahn said he was “a bit torn” as he understood the officer’s argument, but recognised the trees are also at risk and said a TPO would help the impact of the busway on the trees to be taken into account in any public inquiry. The majority of the planning committee ultimately agreed to grant the provisional TPO for the 12 trees.