Representation by Mrs Laurie Woolfenden
- Date submitted
- 30 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Bigger than Wembley, and floodlit I object to the poorly conceived and ill thought through proposed relocation of the Cambridge Sewage Works to Honey Hill, between the conservation villages of Fen Ditton and Horningsea. • Moving the sewage works approximately one mile down the road, at a cost of £227 million (Probably far more) of tax payers money in the current economic climate, lacks justification. Can a HIF grant really be appropriate in this situation? Who will really be footing the bill in the very likely event that £227 million is not enough …….AW’s customers? • In AW’s initial consultation, the results, published in November 2020, concluded that only 10% “strongly supported the relocation” and 17% “supported the relocation” (total 27% supporting) whilst 38% strongly opposed and 15% did not support the relocation (total 53% opposing). Has AW really listened? The Process has been poor. Was enough work done to identify other potential sites? Consultations were carried out inadequately throughout Covid times, making proper face to face discussion very difficult for all. Problems occurred throughout, from crashing websites to misinformation, literature being unavailable and delivered late in some instances…not forgetting poorly run zoom webinars. It would, retrospectively, have been better for all concerned to wait until after the global pandemic, before pushing on with this ill thought through plan. • Building such an enormous structure in an historically rural setting on prime Green Belt agricultural land is contrary to both National and local planning policy when better options exist. Honey Hill forms part of the essential “green lungs” of Cambridge and this prime Green Belt land (the size of approximately 30 football pitches) could never be replaced, once lost. • The Carbon footprint of the move, in both the demolition of the current site and erection of a new build from the ground up would be HUGE and cannot be justified in the current climate crisis, when better options are available. Greenwashing statements about achieving carbon neutrality in the future cannot ever out way the damage caused to the environment. • The current sewage works is fully operational. In 2015 approx. £25 million was spent to “futureproof” it for a further 50 years. There is plenty of space and scope to improve, extend and upgrade the current site. Karen Barclay of Anglian Water (wife of Stephen Barclay, Health Secretary) has stated that there is “no operational need” for the site to be moved. If there is no operational need to move, the circumstances for building on Green Belt land and a HIF grant award cannot be construed as “exceptional circumstances”. • Moving the Sewage Works to Green Belt land to create a “box ticking” housing development on a created brown field site, is a very dubious proposition to circumvent current planning regulations and misleading to those unaware of the true circumstances of this situation. • Attempts to greenwash the relocation with promises of carbon neutrality and more created recreational space just don’t wash. Who wants to “picnic in a pong”. Created recreational space is no substitute for the natural beauty of the area which is already enjoyed by so many. • The planned (S)Hartree development on the current Sewage Works site is both High density and High rise. It also has insufficient recreational space and poor accessibility for those unable to cycle. Development of this area will be extremely expensive (the land will have to be decontaminated first before construction can start). It is estimated that it will not be completed before 2048. I wonder how much of the development will actually fulfil the urgent need for affordable housing to local residents, once the Developers and Council have taken their profits. Intention to market property in China has already been expressed in the developers advertising literature. This has happened with other housing development in the Cambridge area and has not served very well at all to help local residents wanting to purchase affordable property. Far better options exist to develop local housing for local people that can be delivered much more quickly, with sensitive design more in keeping with the historic architecture of Cambridge. The need for further Office space is also very questionable. A lot of empty office space exists in the area as more people work from home, since the recent pandemic and changes to our working practice. • I believe that there is a conflict of interest. Cambridge Councils and Anglian Water are set to profit alongside the Developers, should the (S)Hartree development be pushed through. Please read: - [Redacted] concerning the “investment partnership” between SCDC and South Cambs Investment Partnership and the appointed Developers. • There is concern that local residents, schools, pubs and businesses will suffer from the pong. There are many listed buildings and sites of historic interest in the surrounding area which would also be adversely affected. Many people purchased property on the nearby Marleigh development (1,300 dwellings) totally unaware of the planned sewage works relocation. People in Milton purchase housing knowing the situation and location of the sewage works. In 2017, Fen Ditton Parish Council (minuted) was advised that Honey Hill had been deemed unsuitable as a site for relocation of the sewage works. The same conclusion was also drawn in an earlier consultation in 2008…..yet here we are. At that time, serious concerns about the chalk aquafer at Honey Hill were accepted to be true…….the geology of Honey Hill has not changed but these concerns now seem to have been largely ignored. There are further plans to build 12,000 houses on the nearby Marshalls airport site, when it moves. What impact will the sewage works have on the physical and mental health of the residents? [Redacted] • Honey Hill is a site of unspoilt Green Belt land, rich in diverse wildlife on the edge of Wicken Fen and formerly part of the Wicken Fen Vision. Wildlife includes rare skylarks, bees and wasps, deer, and hare to name but a few. It forms part of the much needed “Green lungs” of Cambridge. It is also essential rich agricultural land. Anglian Water’s promise of increased recreational space is laughable. What already exists, natural countryside, is far more valued. As previously stated, who wants to picnic in a pong …and there will always be that, whatever AW say. • There is genuine considerable concern about damage to the chalk aquifer and contamination of the water supply. Sadly, there is evidence that the recent Northstowe development has damaged the local water supply and affected the chalk aquifer there. The Environmental agency took the unusual step this week of expressing concern that there will be insufficient water supply for all the development planned in the Cambridge Area. The answer from Cambridge Water, all residents will have to be “more careful” and they can pump in water from “other areas”….in the future. How realistic is this? It really doesn’t give local residents much confidence in our Town planners. • Furthermore, the chalk aquifer at Honey Hill prevents sinking of the site, meaning that it will be highly visible for miles, in the flat local landscape. The industrial site would be totally out of keeping with the historically agricultural landscape and would alter the Eastern approach to the historic city of Cambridge. The current site at Cowley Road is on clay, far safer, and in a natural dip in the landscape, a well-chosen location. • The local roads, with weight restrictions, would be totally overwhelmed by construction traffic and later by numerous and relentless slurry lorries 146 HGV movements/day (every 15 mins), also creating potential issues for children going to the local school on Horningsea Road and those cycling on the cycle ways, in and out of Cambridge. During the four year construction phase, construction traffic would be at least double this. It would seem Highways does not have the resources to improve road access deemed necessary by locals, to the proposed site at Honey Hill. Local groups have advocated that an exit/entry directly to and from the A14 would be the least worst option, but this has been deemed too expensive. • What also leaves a very bad taste is the fact that Anglian Water now seem to imply that a new modern sewage works would reduce river pollution. The fact is that AW is the third worst polluter of all sewage works in the country. This is due to lack of maintenance and investment in upgrading existing pipework over the last ten years. They do not need to build a new sewage works to upgrade and maintain their neglected pipework. Laurie Woolfenden (Mrs) 30th June 2023