Representation by Catherine Morris
- Date submitted
- 20 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
My objections and concerns are as follows: 1. The proposed site at Honey Hill should have been discounted from the get-go because it is the site of a Principal Chalk Aquifer which is, according to DEFRA, high risk to groundwater contamination and therefore completely unsuitable; it means the structures necessary for a wastewater treatment plant cannot be sunk into the ground as they are at almost every other example of this type of development. I am particularly concerned at how much the structures will protrude above the bund not least the flare stack which will be a beacon of light to be seen from afar 360 degrees. 2. The proposed site is in Green Belt and therefore this project goes against local and national Green Belt planning policies. By moving the water treatment plant to the land at Honey Hill, the effectiveness of the Green Belt around Cambridge will be significantly degraded as it will encourage urban sprawl. The setting of the historic City of Cambridge will be severely impacted, in particular the visual aspect of the eastern approach to Cambridge along the A14. The first buildings you will see as you drive into Cambridge from the east will be the sewage works. The Cambridge Green Belt Study (2012) which has informed the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) identifies the Honey Hill area as one of those areas of land that is considered to be most critical in separating settlements within the immediate setting of Cambridge and should be afforded the greatest protection. The importance of Horningsea and Fen Ditton as two such settlements is recognised by the adoption of their Conservation Area status. 3. Possible sites outside the Green Belt were never properly considered and when it came down to the final 3 sites, Site 3 (Honey Hill) was chosen over Site 2 even though there were more red alerts associated with Site 3 not least because of the Principal Chalk Aquifer; Site 2 is gault clay which provides a natural barrier. At the time, the owner of Site 2, Trinity College, Cambridge, had plans to develop the site as an extension to the Cambridge Science Park. These plans have since been thrown out and therefore Site 2 should be reconsidered. 4. The relocation of the sewage works is required to release brownfield for the development of North East Cambridge (NEC). However, it is not mentioned in the Local Plan (2018) that the development of NEC is dependent upon moving the wastewater treatment plant to Green Belt, which I feel is highly disingenuous – the public have a right to know the consequences. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the plans for NEC will be acted upon, not least as there is no guarantee that the land around the current wastewater treatment works will become available. The plans are in their relative infancy as they have yet to go to consultation. There is strong ongoing opposition to the proposals due in part to the high-density, high-rise buildings being put forward – there is little green space, no secondary school provision and a question mark over how many ‘local’ people will be able to afford to buy or even rent there. The master developers of the core site (Town and U+I) are openly advertising that the development will attract people from overseas and London. I am not aware of any guarantees regarding ‘social’ housing. Therefore, I believe there are too many risks associated with requiring the sewage works to move to Green Belt to facilitate something that is completely untested. 5. Little or no evidence is demonstrated that due diligence has been given to keeping the wastewater treatment plant where it is. I do not believe that our world-renowned City of Cambridge and all the expertise contained therein are not capable of providing a state of the art, smell-free piece of infrastructure that we can all be proud of without compromising our precious Green Belt. The applicant has been clear from the outset that there is no operational need to move and no capacity issue exists. I believe that NEC could be developed in some shape or form without moving the plant and in doing so we could save our planet from the untold carbon cost of shifting a piece of major infrastructure just 1.5km sideways. Cambridge City Council has an aspiration to achieve net carbon zero by 2030 and yet it promotes an arguably unnecessary project which will blow that aspiration out of the water. 6. When you consider the landscape of the proposed site (flat, open fenland) and the fact that it abuts conservation areas and villages with a number of listed buildings and that it is on the doorstep of a site of special scientific interest (Quy Fen), this makes it even more unsuitable for an industrial development and its surrounding bund, both of which will be very difficult to blend or camouflage. The bund and proposed planting the applicant proposes in themselves completely go against what is already there which is open, virtually unobstructed, flat fenland. 7. The application does not fully explain the cost and time implications concerning the decommissioning, decontamination and demolition of the existing plant. I am not confident that due diligence and full transparency is being given to this issue. There are examples of brownfield sites that took many years of work before they were suitable for housing eg. the old Fison’s site at Harston. I cannot accept that these issues should not form part of the application process as they potentially affect the ability to deliver on the housing that depends on the move in the time frame that has been set. 8. The proposed site is arable farmland and therefore provides a source of food which should be given the highest consideration and protection in this time of food insecurity. 9. The impact of construction traffic on the C210 Horningsea Road will have huge consequences for the villages of Horningsea and Fen Ditton. During the restructuring of the A14 junction 34, I envisage Horningsea being significantly impacted with traffic backing up through the village especially at rush hour. Children cycling to school at Fen Ditton Primary School will be affected and I anticipate a worrying increase in pollution levels. Insufficient reasoning has been given for using this access option. Most people preferred the option to access the site from the A14 direct and yet this was glazed over. The operational traffic will cause ongoing traffic issues for me personally as I go to work in North East Cambridge via Junction 34. Historically, the very slightest issue along Horningsea Road causes significant tailbacks into the village of Horningsea and likewise the other way south towards Fen Ditton. Additionally, the planned reconfiguration of the junction only permits traffic leaving the proposed plant to turn left and then right on to the A14. But if the traffic actually needs to travel east along the A14 towards Newmarket, it will then need to exit the A14 at Junction 33 (Milton) and turn back on itself by re-entering the A14 in an easterly direction. This seems to me totally unnecessary when you consider that a direct access on and off the A14 is entirely possible where laybys currently exist. 10. Finally, the impact of this project on [Redacted] has been and will continue to be of great concern to me. I think I can speak for many who are living with this impending DCO, that the [Redacted] caused by the threat to our long-established enjoyment of our homes and our surroundings is huge. Coupled with the prospect of the significant inconvenience and disturbance caused by years of construction and then years of operation, the applicant gives us no reassurance whatsoever that this move is justified or well thought out. The budget seems incredibly tight which is reflected in the less than inspiring design, the choice of location (the cheapest) and the lack of diligence and integrity demonstrated in the application documents. I feel strongly the negative consequences and impacts of this relocation far outweigh any benefits to the communities closest to it but also to the wider communities of Cambridge and its surrounding areas. The technology we are being offered is the same as at the current site and the capacity is no greater. We have everything to lose by allowing this project to go ahead in terms of harm to the environment, wildlife, quality of life for those who currently visit the area for recreational use and the carbon cost of pouring millions of tonnes of concrete on to Green Belt without proven good reason.