Representation by Ian Gilder
- Date submitted
- 18 July 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am a long-standing resident of Clayhithe, Horningsea [Redacted]. From 1998 until July 2022, I was Head of Planning at ERM, a leading planning and environmental consultancy. I have had extensive experience of leading the planning and environmental assessment of major infrastructure projects under the TWAO, DCO and Parliamentary Bill regimes. I submitted detailed responses to Anglian Water’s Phase One and Phase Two Community Consultations and to the Phase Three Statutory Consultation in April 2022. I also provided responses to other AW studies including the EIA Scoping Report and have attended meetings and site visits with the Applicant. I also act as an unpaid adviser to the Save Honey Hill group and have assisted in the preparation of their Relevant Representation. I have concerns about and will submit further representations on a wide range of issues relating to the DCO application, including the matters listed in (i) to (xiv) below. (i) The relocation project is not an NSIP, by virtue of capacity nor as a result of the existence of a s35 Direction. The application is only intended to provide a stated net new capacity for no more that 70 to 100,000 Population Equivalent, which includes Waterbeach, which should have been met on a site close to the New Town. There is no operational need to replace the existing Cambridge WRC and any desire to use the existing site for housing development is not a national infrastructure need. (ii) There is therefore no ‘presumption of need’ for the proposed development. The project is not in WINEP and policies in the NPS on Waste Water 2012 should be given little weight. The application should be determined under the provisions of s105 of the Planning Act 2008, not s104. The policies against which it should be tested are in the NPPF and the adopted local plans. The emerging NE Cambridge Area Action Plan and the Greater Cambridge Local Plan are at a relatively early stage in preparation and the latter is subject to ongoing review of its overall scope and strategic direction, so should be given little weight. (iii) The adopted local plans promote essentially employment led development of NECAAP on land around the existing WRC. Neither Anglian Water nor the local planning authorities have ever conducted robust feasibility studies into the works remaining consolidated and improved on part of the existing site, a commitment given in those local plans. This could have made provision for future expansion to meet the needs of growth in the catchment area population and would still free substantial areas of underused or vacant land for housing and employment development at NECAAP. Given the high values of both housing and high quality business and research floorspace in Cambridge, the consolidation and high quality mixed use development could have been funded on a commercial basis without the need for Housing Infrastructure Fund grant. (iv) If there is a ‘planning case’ for relocating the Cambridge WRC to facilitate housing and employment development and economic growth on its existing site, that relocation, especially if to a Green Belt site, should have been pursued in a holistic way with a robust site selection exercise, as part of the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan and reflected in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. (v) The Greater Cambridge Local Plan housing requirements and strategic sites have not yet been settled. NECAAP proposes high density residential mixed-use development which is poorly conceived and dependent on a range of off-site provision, including the relocation of the Cambridge WWTP and other facilities on Green Belt sites. The high sustainability rating given to NECAAP over other strategic sites is flawed by being dependent on unrealistic assumptions about residents’ travel behaviour. There is sufficient capacity for housing on the other strategic sites already being promoted in the adopted and emerging local plans, without requiring all or much of the housing proposed in NECAAP. (vi) The application does not conform to or meet the requirements of key policies in the NPPF, the adopted local plans or the emerging local plans, in particular, those relating to protection of the Green Belt, sustainable development and design. (vii) The Applicant failed to include a proper assessment of a ‘reasonable alternative’, namely the retention and consolidation of the WWTP on the existing site, in the Environmental Statement, which means the ES does not meet the requirements in Schedule 4(2) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The project assessed should have included the demolition and remediation of the existing works. (viii) The Applicant’s selection exercise for off-site relocation was flawed in numerous respects. In particular, it failed to establish that there were no sites beyond the Green Belt which were suitable and failed to use the ‘value’ of each Green Belt site considered, as an relevant selection factor. The exclusion of any land from the site search that was within 400m from any residential property was an unduly restrictive selection criterion. Site 2 at Impington was rejected mainly because of the development aspirations of the landowner, which was not a criterion that was generally applied to other sites, nor should it have been. (ix) The Proposed Development is ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt which will cause ‘substantial harm’ to the openness and purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt, which should be judged to be ‘very high’. On that basis, the development should not be permitted. The Applicant has concluded, wrongly, that the harm is only ‘moderate’ and has failed to undertake a proper analysis of the impact. The Proposed Development is a large scale industrial complex, deliberately sited in the middle of the open Green Belt gap separating Horningsea from Fen Ditton and the City. The permanent impacts on the Green Belt extend across a substantial area around the built development, up to some 400ha, as a result of the urbanising visual impacts of the development. These impacts will not be reduced significantly over time by the proposed landscape planting. (x) The Application fails to include clear or sufficient information about the adequacy of the planned capacity of the relocated works to meet the needs of Cambridge over a sensible design life, which should be at least 50 years from opening. The tight circular footprint chosen, encircled by an earth bank, offers very little contingency for expansion or upgrading. The design and layout is fundamentally flawed and unduly restrictive, given the inevitable uncertainty about the future technical requirements and more stringent environmental standards that will need to be achieved. The Applicant needs to provide a fully argued analysis of the composition of effluent discharges proposed, both in absolute and volumetric terms, and how these relate to future flow conditions in the River Cam, under realistic climate change scenarios. It is essential that these are fully scrutinised as part of the DCO Examination and made into strict requirements as part of any development consent. It is not appropriate to leave these for subsequent negotiation and approval by the Environment Agency. (xi) The submitted design has not sought to reflect or enhance the essential character of the landscape, topography or setting nor met the environmental constraints in this exposed Green Belt location, close to key villages. The design and mitigation planting will have an unacceptable impact on landscape character and amenity that could have been further reduced. There is undue reliance on a narrow belt of tree and hedge planting on top of the circular bank, which will be difficult to establish and maintain. This means that the exposed higher parts of the plant will remain visible across an extensive open landscape permanently, especially in the winter. (xii) The Applicant’s carbon assessments are inadequate in that these fail to include integral parts of the scheme, in particular, the demolition of the existing works. The assessment should have considered the realistic alternative of retaining and improving the existing works in situ, thereby identifying and quantifying the substantial unnecessary and ‘avoidable’ carbon emissions arising from the construction and demolition involved in the replacement of the existing facilities. The existing works could be made operationally net zero or close to that. (xiii) The Proposed Development will have significant adverse environmental effects during both construction and operation. Some are identified correctly in the Environmental Statement. Others including the effects on historic assets, landscape and visual amenity, have been under-estimated by the Applicant and will cause substantial and permanent harm. All constitute harm to some extent and are material considerations that should lead to the refusal of consent. (xiv) The Applicant has not demonstrated in the Funding Statement that there is sufficient funding available to deliver the project and is unable to justify the Compulsory Acquisition powers being sought. There is no operational infrastructure need for the Proposed Development and it is not an NSIP. It does not accord with key policies in the NPPF, adopted or emerging local plans. It will cause substantial harm to Green Belt and other environmental harm. The Applicant claims that there are ‘very special circumstances’ that outweigh that harm and would allow consent to be granted. The Applicant has not established that there is a sufficient need for the land occupied by the existing facility for housing and has produced no new arguments or evidence in support of the planning case. The Applicant has failed to consider the feasibility of consolidating and improving the Cambridge WWTP on its existing site as an alternative to relocation and has not established that the selected site is suitable. The other potential benefits of the development claimed by the Applicant are, in some cases, not benefits at all and none have much substance. Overall, the Applicant has not established that ‘very special circumstances’ exist that would outweigh the harm to Green Belt and any other harm and, therefore, consent should not be granted. Ian Gilder MA MRTPI FRSA 17 July 2023