Representation by Jon Tollit
- Date submitted
- 29 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Honey Hill Proposed Sewerage Treatment Works The existing facility at Milton is perfectly viable for needs for many years and does not need relocation. The study to select a site was flawed and did not carry out a feasibility study against relevant criteria The site at Honey Hill is inappropriate on many levels. Flawed and irrelevant design concept, no relevant data as to proposed performance. Ecologically and environmentally damaging. Impact on green belt. Impact on near by villages and communities. Huge traffic impact on existing road network that is unsuitable both during construction and operation for many years. The project is not value for money. It is purely driven by profit based on development of Cambridge north site. The process of consultation has been flawed. Little information and data has been provided. The response to comments has been to mitigate problems created by the actual design proposals themselves rather than addess any of the fundamental issues of the facility relocation and operation. ----- Process The proposed water treatment facility at Honey Hill has followed a very unsatisfactory process. There has been very little rigour in the step by step process with little or no relevant information being available for decisions to be tracked. There was no realistic feasibility study or detailed criteria for assessment for each site initially under consideration nor for the design alternatives for the Honey Hill location. Little data was made available as to the design process and the necessary iterative process required to assess the performance of the facility against given criteria to indicate maximised efficiency. Current design tools are available to test, simulate and refine design proposals from many criteria. There is little evidence that indicates this process or thinking. The level of consultation has been inadequate and selective. It has not shared detailed or relevant information or design criteria at the appropriate time to enable proper feedback or dialogue. It has been restricted and selective. Its response to raised concerns has been token and avoids the fundamentals of the issues raised, ignores completely or states that other solutions not possible. Promises to achieve hopeful ambitious and ill defined targets to satisfy are unacceptable. There has been insufficient clarification as to why an adequately sized and functioning facility at Milton needs to be relocated in the first place other than for profit. Are the costs of relocation proven to be appropriate and good value for money for public finance. There is a clear approach to avoid providing clear detailed information at earlier stages and a ‘kick the can down the road’ attitude to gain approval by resolving ‘detail’ later. For such a large and impactful proposal this is a woefully inadequate and naive method. Design proposal I consider the design proposal and process flawed : a) that the proposal has yet to arrive at a design synthesis in which it achieves a sensitive, elegant, functional and economic solution meeting environmental, ecological, social and aesthetic criteria. This suggests that more accomplished designers ought to have been involved. b) by a lack of criteria against which the performance and longevity of the plant are to be measured. c) by the fixation with achieving a strong identity and the limitations of the form chosen. The limitations have not been recognised, so much so, that later versions start to include measures to mitigate against weaknesses inherent in the design. d) by questionable terminology employed, enhancing the impression of confusion. e) by a limited appreciation of the nature of the location’s landscape and how to work with it. f) that the facility and its screening/enclosure are thought of as separate issues and insufficiently holistically. g) that biodiversity could be more successfully achieved. h) that recreational advantages accruing are limited. i) that the preferences of the ‘host communities’ have rarely been accommodated. k) that site, concept and access selection processes have been insufficiently transparent, shared and justified. The current design proposal is based on a ‘strong identity’ which I consider inappropriate in an area requiring integration and sensitivity. The mounded rotunda is a foreign and in appropriate form within this landscape. It imposes a huge variant to the low lying landscape of the fens cutting off views and routes across the area from all directions. It creates a supposed hidden world of engineering surrounded by ineffective mounds and planting that does little to mitigate the impact of the proposed facility. What it does do is create visual barriers where open countryside is the local character of the fens. It doesn’t use the typology of the site nor the existing tree lines that are natural screening. The design of the structures themselves have little or no architectural quality and the effort is to shield structures that are too high to shield or are badly located within the landscape. There is a lack of holistic assessment of the complexities relating to the design and its location. The creation of a Gateway building seems entirely inappropriate for something that requires almost invisible access. Again, design could be utilised more effectively if the criteria were better established. The very best design team should have been engaged in this process from the outset to define relevant criteria, test and iterate and synthesise the conflicting design constraints into an integrated and highly efficient proposal that could be celebrated, representing the high aims and ambitions for an environmentally sensitive future. It has wholeheartedly failed to do that, which is disappointing, disheartening and to be honest scandalous given the current crises that are faced and the role that Cambridge is trying to achieve in many other areas of science and technology. Impact on the conservation areas of Fen Ditton and Horningsea The level of design for such a facility in any location should utilise the best design skill and available tools to show how such a facility could be world class and a show piece for the city. In this particular location it demands even better consideration. There should be an openness to the design process, a proper dialogue and not do the minimum required and then try to mitigate the impact of a bad design or describe hopeful future achievements with little or no proposal as to how these will be achieved. It currently does not adequately consider the impact on the historic nature of the communities or their buildings and settings. Building on Green Belt is contrary to national and local planning policies Building on the Green Belt is unnecessary and against local and national guidelines. Its impact on the local ecology and fauna and flora will be excessive and any proposed mitigation has little or no basis in fact or data or any proposed mechanism for monitoring success or failure. Construction and operational traffic between Horningsea and Fen Ditton Primary School The impact of traffic will be huge on what is a small B road serving local villages. The large increase in traffic and scale of vehicles will have a large impact on the recently implemented cycle way between Horningsea and Fen Ditton. The increase in noise and detrimental effect on air quality will also be detrimental to residents and to the school at Fen Ditton. There could be sensible assessment of vehicular access from the A14 to access the site to the east from the existing lorry park. This would reduce the amount of construction required and remove completely both construction and operational traffic from this restricted junction and road on the flyover. Heavy carbon cost of replacing a working sewage facility at Milton The overall carbon impact will be huge. The carbon cost of moving the existing facility hasn’t been adequately integrated. The impact of construction and traffic impact again hasn’t been adequately shown or calculated. The aim for the facility to be carbon neutral is an aim but not defined, all of which gives little confidence as to the realistic ambition to these targets. Possible threat to a Principle Chalk Aquifer The impact on the aquifer is likely to be extreme given the extent of the proposal. These systems are unique and need to be protected. They also serve existing water supplies to local residents. There is little or no indication of the longer-term impact on the aquifer due to the extent of the facility and how this could possibly be addressed if arising. The Principal Chalk Aquifer prevents sinking of large structures The location of the aquifer negates the option of sinking the main structures lower into the ground to minimise their impact on the surroundings. This wasn’t considered as a criteria or relevant issue when considering or selecting the sites. It has subsequently required inadequate mitigation, expense and inappropriate design intrusion to the landscape. This is an example of incorrect process and design thinking. Impact on the approach to the historic city of Cambridge from the East The visual impact of the facility varies from each direction given the road network and the topography of the site. Long views to the south towards the heights of Gog Magog hills will be impacted. The approach and entry to Cambridge from the east will be welcomed by a infrastructure facility of ill considered design. Hardly the ideal signpost to an historic city or one that sets the benchmark for scientific discovery. Architecture and design aspirations should be much better than that currently proposed. Loss of recreational area important for mental health and well-being The area within and around Honey Hill is used not only by local residents but also as a destination of city dwellers as an easily accessible green space close to the city for walking and exercise of pets, horse riding, cycling etc. Its natural surroundings provide a special and quiet atmosphere for all to use and enjoy at all times of year. This will be severely disrupted by the facility. The idea that a water treatment facility will be a destination for interest and enjoyment is quiet simply laughable. The impact of the scale of the facility and the proposed solution and its future appearance needs to be realistically considered and not described in pseudo poetic jargon in an effort to convince that it will be desirable. This is also relevant in the poor quality of visualisation utilised to present the scheme ignoring the proximity to villages and other key views around the site. Industrialisation north of the A14 The proposal of the location of the facility north of the A14 sets a bad precedent for development creep into the green belt and beyond the boundary of the city urban area defined by the A14. Impact on public rights of way and permissive ways The existing pathways through and around Honey Hill will be greatly impacted and redefined closing off a large are of open agricultural and natural landscape from view and access. Impact on Quy Fen - a Site of Special Scientific Interest, on Wicken Fen & on the Cambridgeshire Dykes These areas and features are unique nationally and of specific importance to this area of Cambridgeshire. They are located so close to the centre of Cambridge and should be protected at all costs. The plans for the extension of Wicken Fen south to the A14 has not been adequately considered. The proposed pipeline north of the facility will have huge detrimental impact to these features during construction and little is indicated as to the longer term impact. There is little or no indication of the longer-term impact on these features due to the extent of the facility and how this could possibly be addressed if arising. Construction traffic for the Waterbeach pipeline The pipeline north of the facility to link to Waterbeach is also hugely disruptive and has had little clarification but will cause huge disruption very close to the east of Horningsea for a considerable distance and forming connections to the road How this will be accessed or contained has not been indicated and could be hugely damaging to the area. Effect of odour on school, residences and businesses The odour from the existing facility in Milton is noticeable in the Horningsea and Fen Ditton locality. The impact of odour from the proposed facility will be increased and little clarification has been defined as to the realistic impact on the nearby villages and particularly the school at Fen Ditton. The structures for highest potential for odour generation are currently located nearest to Horningsea.