Representation by Julian Wolstan Francis (Julian Wolstan Francis)
- Date submitted
- 18 July 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Carter Jonas on behalf of the principal landowner of the site continue to be in negotiations with Anglian Water. These representations are submitted on behalf of Mr Julian Francis and are in addition to responses already made to AWA during the consultation process which are as follows:- 1) Joint response made by Ian Smith of Cheffins on 14 September 2020 together with legal advice from Howes Percival and an Opinion from Mr Lockhart-Mummery QC of Landmark Chambers dated 5 January 2021. The Opinion highlighted the “legal and process difficulties” facing this project and the grounds on which it is proposed. 2) A further response dated 16 August 2021 made by Carter Jonas on behalf of Julian Francis to AW’s second consultation. In accordance with Anglian Water’s letter dated 23 February 2022 we understand that our responses to the consultations 1 and 2 were reported to the Planning Inspectorate in a Consultation Report. We have not therefore repeated the representations but comment as follows :- 1. Requirement to move – we continue to question the requirement to relocate to a green field site considering AW have invested £21 million in the existing plant to enable Cambridge to expand “for decades to come” in their own words. Whilst remaining at the current location may prevent some of the 8,000 homes being developed in North East Cambridge, it is one location amongst others where homes can be built. We acknowledge that this process is part of a separate consultation and that there is no certainty at this stage that the development will proceed as proposed. 2. Use of Statutory Powers – We questioning the whole principle of relying on statutory powers when AW will be significantly benefiting from this relocation. We understand that HIF funding requirements are weighted in favour of AW customers and the local community but there is no transparency about the scheme at this juncture. We assume that a detailed costing has been prepared in order to have secured the provisional funding although this has not been shared. 3. Long Term Vision – it appears that site 3 has been selected for a number of reasons and not with any longer-term vision in mind. We have the following observations : a. Site 3 is within the HIF funding area and hence the facility could not apparently be located away from the City as it would not then benefit from the £227 million grant funding. b. It does not take the opportunity to move the treatment works further away from the City. We believe that this is partly due to it being less expensive to construct and operate as proposed, the latter being a cost AW will bear once operational. c. From an engineering perspective it is apparently not possible to build the new facility near Waterbeach. If that is the case, it does question why these sites were considered as possible locations in the first place? d. A great deal is placed on generating green energy, creating new wildlife habitats and improving access to the countryside. All of these can be achieved on the land without building a new water treatment works. e. The site is owned by one landowner which is more convenient for AW. 5. Low Carbon – AW make the claim that the new facility will be “operationally net zero carbon”. It would be interesting to learn about the carbon impact created by decommissioning the existing facility and building the new one. 6. Additional land take – despite requests AW have not been able to demonstrate why they require so much mitigation land. 7. We understand that additional comments can be added in due course.