Representation by Jennifer Krombacher
- Date submitted
- 5 July 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Main issues: The project is unnecessary and inappropriate. Honey Hill is an unacceptable choice of site. The project is unnecessary because the existing water treatment works in Milton are fully functional. According to Anglian Water themselves, there is no operational need for the relocation. In 2015 £25 million was spent updating the existing site, giving it capacity for another 50 years. Therefore spending £227 million or more, dismantling and moving it approximately one mile away and onto Green Belt, cannot be justified and is a misuse of taxpayers money. This also raises the question of how this project qualifies for the HIF grant, as it cannot be claimed to be “exceptional circumstances”. Neither the 8000 houses nor the unnecessary move of the water works to create space for them, constitute “exceptional circumstances”. The move does not just have a financial cost, it has a massive environmental cost. It is being moved to Green Belt so that the brown field site it will leave can be developed for housing. The carbon footprint of the demolition of the existing works and their rebuilding is enormous. The site itself will have to be made safe before any development can take place and that will be costly and take years. There is already a huge number of houses being built and many more having received planning permission in this area. This move will have an enormous carbon footprint cost and yet it is neither necessary nor well thought through. The environmental cost is not limited to the carbon footprint of the move and the construction of the new works. It also impacts the chosen site. Honey Hill sits on a chalk aquifer. This in itself lies close to an SSSI site. Therefore building a sewage treatment works in this location risks contaminating the aquifer and potentially the neighbouring SSSI site. The choice of Honey Hill is also inappropriate because the geology of the area impacts on the choice of design of the new plant. Sinking the towers to minimise their visual impact cannot be fully achieved because of the geology of the area. The design choice is compromised, leaving invasive tall towers on a raised position in the Fen Edge landscape. This is also an area close to the proposed Wicken Fen Vision. The construction of the sewage works so close to the boundaries of this project is incongruous and conflicts with the attempt to create a green corridor and ‘green lung’ in this area. There is massive development taking place in North Cambridge and people need access to countryside, not to walkways constructed around the perimeters of a sewage works. Another impact that concerns me is the huge increase in heavy traffic during construction and thereafter. This will impact the road and path users in and around Horningsea and Fen Ditton and all those trying to reach the villages to the north of Horningsea or south to the city centre. The B1047 is already a busy road and the lorries will need to cross it according to current plans. Alternative solutions, including direct access via a slip road from the A14 were rejected as too expensive. This again demonstrates how local views, relating to individuals’ safety, health and wellbeing, and the impact on the communities, local residents and the environment have been considered less importance than financial considerations. It is deeply concerning that the slip road was deemed too expensive. This raises questions as to whether other mitigation, even that proposed by Anglian Water, will also prove too expensive to fulfil. Another concern of mine is the timing and quality of the consultations. They took place during Covid and this prevented many people from having access to information and being able to discuss the project in a timely manner and a way that suited them. Anglian Water provided some brochures offering limited information and provided some on-line Webinars (for those able to access them) which proved to be poorly prepared and inadequate. The method of eliciting public opinion was poor in the questionnaires and on-line and I found the information provided to the public inadequate and misleading at times. Anglian Water should not be permitted to proceed with this damaging proposal. It is unacceptable that such a seriously flawed project, both in terms of why it is happening and where it is being proposed, has been allowed to progress to this stage. It is not justifiable and even if it were, Honey Hill is the wrong choice of site.