The Council’s trees officer, 9 February 2026

The document in full

Open the original PDF

Page 1

PLANNING CONDITION - CONSULTATION RESPONSE Consultee: Reference Number: Proposal:

Site Address: Case Officer: Responding Officer: Date:

Trees 25/02161/CONDB & 25/02161/CONDA Submission of details required by condition 9 (Tree Protection Methodology) and condition 11(Temporary Kitchen and Dining Facility) of planning permission 25/02161/FUL. Christs College, Christs College Library St Andrews Street Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB2 3BU Dominic Bush Philippa Roberts 9th February 2026

Cross all that apply

☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

The condition(s) can be discharged in full.  Conditions x, y, z The condition(s) cannot be discharged, as the information is unacceptable.  Conditions 9 & 11 The condition(s) are outside this team’s expertise  Conditions x, y, z It is not possible to comment on the proposed discharge of condition due to insufficient information being submitted and the information set out below will be required for additional comments to be provided  Conditions x, y, z The condition(s) can be discharged in part, the following elements are acceptable:  Condition(s) s x, y, z, criteria #

Condition(s) to be discharged in full / part: Documents / drawing numbers to be discharged

(List all reviewed documents relevant to each condition to be discharged / part discharged)  Tree Protection Scheme, P3783-TPS01 V4, by Ligna Counsultancy dated 4 th February 2026

Background information /additional comments: Following previous comments made in relation to discharge of conditions 9 & 11, further information including a revised tree protection report have been submitted.

Page 2

The proposed extent and location of the temporary kitchen/dining room submitted as part of the application stage, and detailed within the AIA report, was far from ideal but acceptable, alongside a suitable tree protection scheme. As part of the submitted tree protection scheme the footprint of the dining room has increased and now extends over the entire grass area adjacent to T10, with a small area left around the base of the tree, but even this will be covered by ground protection. The duration of the dinning room and ground protection will be a minimum of 18 months. This means that the tree will be deprived of natural hydration for at least two growing seasons, which is totally unacceptable. The tree report recommends mulch to slow water loss from evaporation but this will do little to assist with water extraction by roots. It is also likely to inhibit any artificial efforts to rehydrate the underlying soil. The report also suggests that soil drying will be monitored, but I fail to see how this will be feasible when most of the lawn area will be located beneath a building. No supplementary watering system has been suggested, other than a standpipe/external tap should anyone deign to turn it on. Whilst there will be a low level of natural run off from the temporary buildings it is unlikely to be sufficient and lateral movement will also be negligible – these issues are clearly demonstrated by desiccated soil conditions found beneath domestic sheds. Soil improvement works should not be necessary, if the tree is appropriately considered, and in these circumstances are considered to be misguided as they are unlikely to sufficiently mitigate for extreme and prolonged drought stress. The final insult for the tree (T10) comes from the lawn remediation works, which recommend further root damage by airspading within the entire footprint of the temporary structure and rotovation of the soil, which should never be carried out close to trees. It is clear from the above that the needs of the tree (T10) have not been adequately considered. And that if the extended footprint of the temporary building had been identified at the application stage then objections would have been raised earlier in the planning process. I would respectfully request that conditions 9 & 11 are not discharged.

Open the original PDF