We have presented information about how the facility will reduce carbon emissions in our Carbon Paper. Are there other measures or suggestions you would like to see us consider as we develop our plan for reducing carbon emissions during construction and operation of the new facility?

Not building the site will reduce carbon emissions considerable. No to the treatment works.

Do you have any other comments or suggestions on our proposals for the Gateway Building?

Your design of the Gateway Building is better than your previous attempt, but you should reduce its size further by NOT having a Discovery Centre at all and using the building only for plant operations. The proposed Discovery Centre is un-necessary and entirely inappropriate for a site on the Green Belt. Not only is it a waste of money that could be spent on more screening, but it would generate more traffic on our already busy roads. Furthermore, you would not need a visitor’s car park, which you have sited outside the earthwork bank. This is not acceptable; all parking should be inside the bank. All strictly un-necessary infrastructure, including office space for other staff, must be excluded from the site. You should retain a small amount of land at the existing plant for your Discovery Centre with interactive displays for the public which show both the old plant and the new one.

The design of the gateway building has changed following phase two consultation and we present an updated proposal based on feedback showing a more natural entrance to the facility which blends into the earthwork bank and planted screen. What are your views on the revised design proposal, including its function, size and scale?

Negative

In our preliminary environmental information we have shown how odour from the facility will not adversely affect people’s homes or enjoyment of the surrounding area, and outlined the design measures we will adopt to minimise odour. Do you have any comments or suggestions for further measures you would like to see in our Odour Management Plan?

I dispute your statement that odour will not adversely affect people’s homes or enjoyment of the surrounding area. This is not something you can guarantee. It will have a huge impact on those closest and downwind of the site, in particular the Primary school, where the children will be severely effected. You have underestimated the risk of odour nuisance; lived experience shows that modelling does not predict the maximum extent of the nuisance.

We have explained updated proposals for a Discovery Centre to provide a managed educational resource, by appointment only, for local schools and community groups. Do you think these visitor opportunities are suitable for the new facility?

• No

Do you have any other comments or suggestions on our odour mitigation proposals?

You must show that you have considered the option of reprocessing sludge elsewhere; this would help reduce odour and traffic volumes. There is no operational need to process sludge from all around the area of Cambridge at the treatment plant, it’s just that this is what has happened at the existing plant for more than 100 years.

Do you have any other comments or suggestions on our proposals for visitor access to the new facility?

This site should be purely operational and should not include visitor access - this is highly unnecessary and eats into the greenbelt further. This is not an educational trip any school child would wish to attend.

We have presented information about how the facility will reduce carbon emissions in our Carbon Paper. Are there other measures or suggestions you would like to see us consider as we develop our plan for reducing carbon emissions during construction and operation of the new facility?

I cannot see how the choice of this site is the least damaging to the environment. It is an unsuitable site due to underlying geology and so the amount of concrete and vehicle movements alone can not be off set. never mind decommissioning the existing site which has no operational reasons to move

Do you have any other comments or suggestions on our proposals for the Gateway Building?

As far as I can see this is an unsuitable site and no amount of poor design will rectify it. This is an unnessacary development that does nothing but line the pocket of developers. How can it be legal to move a fully operational sewage works to a green field site costing millions to end up with no longer a working life and at the expense of the natural environment and green belt

The design of the gateway building has changed following phase two consultation and we present an updated proposal based on feedback showing a more natural entrance to the facility which blends into the earthwork bank and planted screen. What are your views on the revised design proposal, including its function, size and scale?

Negative

In our preliminary environmental information we have shown how odour from the facility will not adversely affect people’s homes or enjoyment of the surrounding area, and outlined the design measures we will adopt to minimise odour. Do you have any comments or suggestions for further measures you would like to see in our Odour Management Plan?

I don't believe your preliminary information

Do you have any other comments or suggestions on our odour mitigation proposals?

Don't build. No operational reason

Do you have any other comments or suggestions on our proposals for visitor access to the new facility?

Who wants to visit a sewage works? Especially one that's has trashed the green belt

We have presented information about how the facility will reduce carbon emissions in our Carbon Paper. Are there other measures or suggestions you would like to see us consider as we develop our plan for reducing carbon emissions during construction and operation of the new facility?

I don't believe you have presented very comprehensive and clear information. In the consultation document you have mentioned that you are committed to net zero emissions but to get any further info, we have to search your website to read a Carbon Paper. Also you mention here "reduce" whereas in the document you are implying "eliminate". It is unacceptable to dig up Green Belt and spend £227 million with all of the energy that will expend unnecessarily and equate that to net zero by 2030. Also, your Purpose and Strategic Direction don't actually even mention what your customers expect, which is actually providing/recycling water/waste water. There's no point in achieving net zero and aiming for environmental and social prosperity without stating that your purpose is to do the very thing you are building a new facility for. And why state it twice? Your map on page 4 is mysterious too. What has Hartlepool got to do with anything? I don't have solutions to reducing carbon emissions, but the following will increase them: Decommissioning existing facility. An irresponsible and unnecessary use of energy. Huge numbers of lorries both during construction and later in operation. The materials used for construction.

Do you have any other comments or suggestions on our proposals for the Gateway Building?

Why is one necessary? So either don't have one or keep it very discreet. It adds nothing to the environment. Ditto the car park. Visiting traffic will lead to congestion on Horningsea Road and on the A14 access slip road.

In our preliminary environmental information we have shown how odour from the facility will not adversely affect people’s homes or enjoyment of the surrounding area, and outlined the design measures we will adopt to minimise odour. Do you have any comments or suggestions for further measures you would like to see in our Odour Management Plan?

You make incompatible statements: Ie It is difficult to eliminate odour completely And Nuisance odour will not have a negative impact on people's enjoyment of their homes. You mention "unlikely" to detect odour, "negligible" odour and "unlikely to find it an annoyance or offensive. You have also promoted inner rings of the odour area as places for people to use for walks etc. How is this an attractive proposition when they are close to odour and particles which will be a health risk? You have underestimated and not acknowledged that odour IS a nuisance and it will adversely affect people's quality of daily life and mental health.

We have explained updated proposals for a Discovery Centre to provide a managed educational resource, by appointment only, for local schools and community groups. Do you think these visitor opportunities are suitable for the new facility?

• No

Do you have any other comments or suggestions on our odour mitigation proposals?

I cannot make suggestions as I have no technical knowledge in this respect. However, you should aim to eliminate odour.

We have presented information about how the facility will reduce carbon emissions in our Carbon Paper. Are there other measures or suggestions you would like to see us consider as we develop our plan for reducing carbon emissions during construction and operation of the new facility?

has the carbon involved in decommissioning the existing perfectly functional sewage works been accounted for

Do you have any other comments or suggestions on our proposals for the Gateway Building?

any construction of this size in the green belt and in a flat open landscape is not going to blend into its surroundings

The design of the gateway building has changed following phase two consultation and we present an updated proposal based on feedback showing a more natural entrance to the facility which blends into the earthwork bank and planted screen. What are your views on the revised design proposal, including its function, size and scale?

Mostly negative

We have explained updated proposals for a Discovery Centre to provide a managed educational resource, by appointment only, for local schools and community groups. Do you think these visitor opportunities are suitable for the new facility?

• No

Do you have any other comments or suggestions on our proposals for visitor access to the new facility?

no one is going to want to visit and picnic at a sewage works. this is just ticking boxes

The design of the gateway building has changed following phase two consultation and we present an updated proposal based on feedback showing a more natural entrance to the facility which blends into the earthwork bank and planted screen. What are your views on the revised design proposal, including its function, size and scale?

Negative

In our preliminary environmental information we have shown how odour from the facility will not adversely affect people’s homes or enjoyment of the surrounding area, and outlined the design measures we will adopt to minimise odour. Do you have any comments or suggestions for further measures you would like to see in our Odour Management Plan?

No absolute understandable units of odour are shown

We have explained updated proposals for a Discovery Centre to provide a managed educational resource, by appointment only, for local schools and community groups. Do you think these visitor opportunities are suitable for the new facility?

• No

Do you have any other comments or suggestions on our odour mitigation proposals?

Your proposals stink