Representation by Kwok Wai Cheung
- Date submitted
- 11 July 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Objection to the proposed relocation of the waste water treatment plant to Honey Hill I am a new resident of CB5, a district that will be severely and adversely affected by the proposed move. I object to the proposed relocation because the proposal is totally unfair to the local residents living near the new site and the relocation does not address the urgent needs and concerns of the Cambridge residents represented by the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, namely, the severe housing shortages (which led to painfully high rents and unaffordable house prices) and lack of convenient public transportation and infrastructure (which led to heavy traffic congestion during the rush hours at all roadways and junctions). The details are as follows: 1. The site selection has not adequately considered the impact of the relocation to the new Marleigh community - The proposed relocation site is very close to a highly populated new community of Marleigh where over 1,300 new houses are located. The site selection process has not adequately considered the impact of the relocation to the Marleigh community because the selection of the Honey Hill site unfortunately proceeded before the Marleigh residents started to move in. But it is not too late to find a remedy. By moving the new location northward by about three miles, it could greatly mitigate the risk of inducing health hazards to the Marleigh residents due to the unavoidable bad odour and possible overspill of untreated waste water from the treatment plant. 2. The relocation of the waste water treatment plant is totally unfair to the local residents living near the new site - The waste water treatment company receives government compensation of £227 Million to move to the new green belt site. At the same time, it can also keep the land of the existing Cowley Road facility to develop it into a real estate business of 8,000 homes for profit, while the local residents near the new site will (a) lose a large green belt area, (b) suffer from rumbling noises and air pollution from the hectic construction activities, (c) experience extra traffic congestion on the already-overloaded road system at Cambridge, and (d) put up with long-term bad odour and possible health hazard implications. There is a big contrast between the benefits received by the waste water treatment company versus the disturbances and sufferings endured by the residents. The disparity should be levelled. 3. A regulated, monopoly business should not receive public funding to develop unregulated real-estate business - The waste water treatment company is a regulated business with monopoly power and guaranteed profits. It is controversial to channel £227 Million public funding to benefit a regulated, monopoly business, and even worse, help it develop unregulated real-estate business at zero land cost with guaranteed profits. Will the profit coming from the real-estate redevelopment of Cowley Road land be considered regulated income or unregulated income? This is not disclosed. The local community should expect any financial profits coming from the redevelopment of the old site go into a public fund for future infrastructure development. This seems to be very a very reasonable demand given that the HIF funding injection is from the central government. 4. The relocation will not bring any relief on housing shortages and traffic congestion to the city for over a decade - The consultation document painted a rosy picture that the redevelopment of the North East area will bring new look, new jobs and new homes to the city. But the fact is that the earliest date for decommissioning the existing waste water treatment facility is 3/2028, after which the existing facility will be torn down and the land redeveloped. It will take a minimum of two to three years after 3/2028 before the first house could be made available. It means that the plan does not deliver any housing relief for local residents until 2031. According to the consultation time schedule, only 4,000 homes will be made available up to 2041, so the whole plan does not bring much of a relief to the housing shortages and road congestion difficulties for the next fifteen to twenty years while the new waste water treatment plant is being constructed and the old one relocated. 5. The relocation will further aggravate the existing traffic congestion problem by adding 8,000 homes to the edge of the city - The £227 million HIF fund injection will not bring any relief to traffic congestion problem faced by the residents but instead will aggravate the situation for another decade because of the extra construction traffic, road closures and traffic diversion. After the completion of the relocation and development of the north-east area, there will be 8,000 more homes permanently added to the north-east edge of the city. The added demand for city transportation will overwhelm the current public transportation system. 6. The housing shortage and traffic congestion problems can be addressed by developing other more available sites which do not need to wait for the relocation of the waste water treatment facility - The £227 million HIF can be much more effectively deployed to build traffic infrastructure and new housing facilities by tapping into other vacant lands with no waiting time. For example, the two other short-listed sites for relocating the waste water treatment plant at Impington and Histon (identified in the Phase I Consultation), or the existing Cambridge City Airport site, can all be developed rapidly without incurring a long waiting period. 7. The financial return for the HIF fund is extremely low and the accounting is untransparent - The termination of the existing waste water treatment facility means that the facility is totally written off despite the fact that the facility is fully operational and the capacity limit is not yet reached in the near future. But the dominant factor for the diminished financial return is that the existing facility cannot be shut down immediately but has to wait for five years until the new facility could be fully operational. The schedule cannot be accelerated because of the required time and difficulties involved in building a new, state-of-the-art waste water treatment facility and relocating the existing facility. This means that the valuable investment capital will not be recovered for nearly twenty years. The financial return for such a prolonged and complex project is not given in the consultation papers but is speculated to be extremely poor. This would be a very inefficient use of the infrastructural development fund provided by the central government. The public should be allowed to scrutinise the financial figures to give blessings to such an enormous undertaking. Suggestions for remedial actions It is unfortunate that the consultation does not attempt to address the urgent housing shortage and road congestion problems facing the residents of Cambridge city. The consultation is a misdirected effort because the relocation of the waste water treatment facility will not bring any relief for over a decade. Here are some suggested remedies to the problems stated above: 1. Regarding Item 1 above, the proposed Honey Hill site can be moved northward by about three miles. This will address the concerns of Item 1. The benefit of moving north means that the pipelines linking Waterbeach and the water treatment facility will be shorter thus reducing the cost of construction. 2. Regarding Item 2 above, (a) the communities around Honey Hill are the ones whose legitimate rights are impaired because of the loss of green space, bad odour, traffic congestion, air pollution etc... during construction. The residents and households affected by the relocation should be compensated by reduced sewage charges according to the distance from the new plant. (b) The green belt zone proposed for the relocation should be given on a temporary lease hold (say of 125 years) so that it could be returned to the residents when the facility becomes obsolete and needs to be relocated again. 3. Regarding Item 3 above, a more transparent and clear financial accounting of the profits coming from the real-estate development of the old Cowley Road site should be provided. 4. Regarding Items 3 & 7, the financial profit coming from the real-estate development should go into an infrastructural fund under the joint auspices of Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. This is because the HIF funding injection should be properly accounted for and should not become profits of a regulated monopoly going into unregulated real-estate development. 5. Regarding Items 4, 5 & 6, priorities for relieving housing shortage should be given to other more available site, including the two other short-listed sites for relocating the waste water treatment plant at Impington and Histon, or the existing Cambridge City Airport. 6. Regarding Items 4, 5 & 6, priorities for relieving the traffic congestion should be to reorganize and expand the existing bus routes to interconnect the down town area with all Park & Rides, train stations, university facilities, Science Park, hospitals, shopping malls and all residential areas. If there is convenient bus access to hot spots in the city, the out-of-city motor traffic will be stopped right at the edge of the Park & Rides, and the local residents will think twice about the need to use their motor vehicles. This will greatly relieve the city of the heavy traffic congestion during rush hours.