Representation by Frank Hopkirk
- Date submitted
- 17 July 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
It is not needed in terms of capacity - Anglia Water have confirmed that the existing site is sufficient for requirements till 2050. The proposed site is grade 1 green belt agricultural land and needed for this purpose in a time of food insecurity (and which is not likely to go away). The proposed building would be against both local and national policy. It will destroy a beautiful area of land rich in flora and fauna(such as roe and muntjac dear, skylarks, wild flowers and plants). It will destroy a space loved and enjoyed by walkers and cyclists, not least in a time when such activities are important for exercise and good mental health. I write as both a regular walker and cyclist who uses and loves this area, for its beauty, tranquility and ecology. There will inevitably be problems with odour coming from the site which will be unpleasant. The proposed brutalist architecture will be seen for miles around, despite attempts to mask it, as being out of context with the flat East Anglian landscape. It will be an ugly blight on the approach to Cambridge along the A14 The proposed site is very close to Quy Fen, a SSI, and could adversely affect this area and its wildlife. This too is a beautiful and peaceful area which will be disturbed by the proximity of the proposed works. There are a number of aquifers in the region which are relied upon by some local for drinking water and which could well lead to contamination. The Wicken Fen vision and project to extend the wet lands, to recreate the original natural landscape and support and encourage biodiversity, will be negatively affected. The proposed access route to take in many lorries a day will affect traffic flow through the village adversely, will increase particle emissions, and will cause an aural disturbance. No consideration of other sites outside the green belt surrounding Cambridge seems to have been fully considered and put to the vote by residents. The final choice of three sites, all unsuitable, has been foistered on residents who would be affected whatever site had been chosen. The proposed development of the existing works as a housing development seems poorly thought through, everyone squeezed in, and doesn't appear to be a potential pleasant place to live. They are relying on Milton Country Park, already at full stretch, as a greenspace outlet. There appears to have been no proper evaluation of the carbon cost this move would involve (significant cement usage in construction). It will be expensive for just a short distance down the road. Overall it seems a cynical effort to make money and all in all, poorly thought through with no thought for the local population, or proper consideration of alternatives (had such been needed). It thus seems an example of very poor husbandry in terms of overall management and conservation of resources.