Representation by Stow-cum-Quy Parish Council (Stow-cum-Quy Parish Council)
- Date submitted
- 18 July 2023
- Submitted by
- Parish councils
I am providing comments on behalf of the Parish Council of Stow-cum Quy. First and foremost, we do not believe the current planning application sufficiently justifies relocating the water treatment plan from its current location. We believe Anglian Water is attempting to relocate in order to take advantage of a number of national funding streams and receive substantial income from the project, without taking account of the environmental impacts of such a move. Only eight years ago, £21 million was spent updating the current water treatment plant, on the basis that it would be continuing for another 50 years. As a result of this spend, odour was significantly reduced and improvements made. The relocation application itself specifies that Anglian Water has purposefully not provided a joint application with any new housing development that may or may not be built on the land left behind. As such, the reason for relocation must be found necessary in its own right, and we cannot see sufficient reason for this. In addition to there being insufficient justification for the relocation, it also comes at a significant cost to the new location, as the land to be built on is greenbelt land. Within the ‘environmental impact’ section of the application there is no mention of the carbon footprint of building of the new plant. At in-person consultation events and through formal written consultations, we have specifically asked Anglian Water to provide details of the carbon footprint of the new build, without success. We do not believe that it is acceptable to plan a build of this significance without at least acknowledge the extent of the carbon footprint of the new build and suggestions regarding how this can be off-set. In terms of the carbon footprint of the decommissioning of the old (current) treatment plant, this has also been avoided in the application altogether. There is reference to a two-week programme to switch off the electricity, clean down relevant spaces and ensure water is prevented from collecting. The plan is then to leave it to the new developer to clean up. This again evidences a lack of responsibility and oversight from Anglian Water, noting that the current construction is largely made of concrete, a material which requires a huge carbon footprint to create and which is highly unlikely, to be used by any future developer. The plan mentions 15,000 new jobs will be created by the move. However, there is no information about what those jobs will be, whether they are jobs related to the construction of the new plant or will be secure roles. It is also unclear whether these roles may be an advantage for local people or whether, if they are temporary and contracted roles, they are more likely to be roles for people employed elsewhere and brought into the area temporarily. Assuming the relocation goes ahead If the relocation was to be considered sufficiently justified then there are further comments we wish to make about the plans for the new build. The plans to reduce odour are based on a 5-year averaging of the wind. This is unhelpful for local residents, particularly Quy. When the wind is averaged out over 5 years, it shows a circular pattern staying close to the site, which shows little impact on the surrounding villages. However, from time to time we have strong North-West and Westerly winds, which would take the odour straight from the plant to Quy. If such winds have not even been taken account of in the planning of the new site then we are not confident that the current design will adequately limit the odour. Noticeable odour will have an obvious impact on the residents in numerous ways. We request that Anglian Water take account of all of the different types of wind that have been logged within the last five years and that the odour is accounted for in relation to each one. In terms of the visual impact of the new site, it has been confirmed that the bund height around the edge is being limited to 5m, originally this was described as between 5-7 metres. The limited bund height is disappointing and is not sufficient to cover the 21.5m height of the towers. More could be done to limit the visibility of the towers by raising the bund height. Suggesting that trees will be planted on top of the bunds (in an exposed area) is not in itself sufficient further coverage. The ‘environmental impact’ section does not specify that mature trees will be used wherever possible in the planting design, despite our specific comments on this matter. Planting mature trees will make a big difference to the time taken for the planting to have an effect. There should be a commitment to planting primarily mature trees and to do so before the building work even commences, to ensure that the vegetation is given as much time as possible to provide coverage prior to the construction beginning. OFWAT are investigating Anglian Water for discharging untreated sewage into the water. Anglian Water have confirmed that it will continue to use the current waterways for discharging cleaned water and untreated sewage, therefore, there is no advantage to the move in this regard. It also feels unfair that a company can be investigated for unlawful behaviour and at the same time potentially receive agreement to continue to receive money to build new treatment plants, without having to pay for its current messes. It does not offer any incentive for Anglian Water to behave better in the future. The Cambridge aquifer is already limited and there are concerns about it continuing to be sufficient capacity for the people of Cambridge. There is a plan to bore 25m into the aquifer to build additional foundations for some of the buildings, it is unclear whether the impact of these plans have been considered in relation to the water supply. Light pollution from the new site is also a concern. While the plan refers to complying with the Local Authority in relation to light pollution, this does not give a specific plan for the impact of the light pollution, this also leaves significant discretion to the Local Authority. We are aware that the lighting for the new site would be at a lower height than that on the current site but that this would require more lighting at a lower level. While there is reference to ‘wildlife sensitive’ lighting in the plan, it is unclear what this means and what the actual impact will be on the wildlife, again, noting its previous greenbelt designation of the new build site. Furthermore, the plan states that while the treatment plant is being constructed there will be moderate significant impact for local residents in relation to lighting (and one can only assume on the wildlife). Noting the length of time that the build will take, this is concerning. While the plan indicates there will be some mitigation for residents when the planting matures, no comment is made regarding the wildlife in this matter. Within the ‘environmental impact’ section, any references to ‘by year x’ are not explicit about whether it will be x years from the initiation of the project or whether it is x years from when the build is complete. Clarification in this regarding would be helpful. Finally, the plan to improve the proposed bridleway, between the site and Quy is unclear. In any case, there needs to be sufficient consideration given to prevent any unlawful vehicles using the bridleway, which is already a concern.