CWWTPR Proposals logoCWWTPR Proposals

5. Provide your feedback on other aspects of our proposals contributions

Some people making comments

...

A person happy and a comment icon

...

over 2 years ago

0

Based on the information provided in our consultation material, overall how supportive are you of our emerging proposals for a new facility at our selected site north of the A14?

Negative

Are there any other measures that you would like us to explore for the project to support climate change resilience?

No

Please explain why you think this.

Supporting climate change resilience would involve not building a sewage works on green belt land and emitting a gigantic quantity of CO2 in the process.

Please explain why.

I find it utterly disgusting that Anglian Water is intent on exploiting a planning loophole that will allow the relocation of a perfectly functional sewage works to green belt land, in order to make a killing by selling off the existing site for development while inflicting a horrific outcome on the local community. Shame on you.

Add your like! More reaction types are coming soon.

over 2 years ago

0

What opportunities would you like to see us explore in our plans for the relocation project to deliver public value and promote collaborative opportunities?

I would like to see Anglian Water, the local authorities in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire work together to rethink the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (NECAAP) so that there is no longer a need to move a sewage works that does not have any operational reason to be relocated, in particular given that millions of pounds were spent on upgrading the current site on Cowley Road in 2015, futureproofing it for decades to come. To move it would deliver no public value whatsoever as it would be a waste of £227m tax payers' money (the HIF money) as there isn't an operational need to move it and ruin the green belt in this area of north east Cambridge between Fen Ditton, Horningsea, Quy and Lode, opening it to more industrialisation in the future, in what is a rural setting between conservation villages. The money would be better spent on the NHS, state education and social services, all of which are in absolute dire need of sufficient funding. If it is to be relocated then it needs to be to a site that will enable it to be world leading facility; i.e. being able to sink the digester towers, which are in fact sunk at the Cowley Road site and making sure that the odour isn't noticeable in the surrounding vicinity of the site.

Are there any other measures that you would like us to explore for the project to support climate change resilience?

Yes

Based on the information provided in our consultation material, overall how supportive are you of our emerging proposals for a new facility at our selected site north of the A14?

Negative

Please explain why.

I am strongly against the proposals for a new facility on the site north of the A14. It is not a suitable location as we have been told that the digester towers cannot be sunk. It is currently a greenbelt site and there is no operational need to move the existing facility at Cowley Road. As it's a rural location, there is minimal light pollution there at the moment; wildlife currently living in that green belt land are going to be very adversely affected if the sewage works is moved to this site north of the A14. The North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (NECAAP) should be rethought given the changes that have taken place during the pandemic. There is a demand for more space at home, including private outdoor space, this cannot be satisfied with dense housing which is not in keeping with the Cambridge skyline. There is already a shortage of water in this area of the country and so development on this scale (NECAAP, the reason for the relocation) is not sustainable and is going to cause huge environmental damage. To consult on the proposed relocation of the sewage works separately to NECAAP does not make sense as they are intrinsically linked. If the relocation does go ahead and it goes over budget I am concerned that mitigation will be the first area to be scaled back as Anglian Water are unlikely to use their own money for this project and the local authorities in Cambridge have said that they won't be funding any over-spend. When it comes to odour, everything possible needs to be done to make sure the odour is as low as possible for the residents of nearby villages and for those visiting Quy Fen. Anglian Water should be monitoring the odour locally so that it can immediately take steps to rectify problems if odour becomes noticeable and not just waiting until residents make complaints. If the relocation does go ahead then I understand that pipework from Waterbeach New Town will run through Horningsea and it is likely this will leak at some point. This is very concerning.

Are there any other measures you think we should consider when preparing for the construction phase of the project?

If the relocation does go ahead, the site access needs to be from a new junction off the A14, not on the existing C road off junction 34. A temporary access that is nevertheless going to be in place for at least two and half years during peak construction and possibly longer, will be very detrimental to the communities living in the villages surrounding the proposed relocated site. If a new facility is built it should be built with materials that are as sensitive as possible to the environment and the structures should be designed so that it blends as well as possible into the area. For example, the digester towers should be sunk and everything to do with the facility should be inside the bund.

Please explain why you think this.

Not relocating the site would be the best way to support climate change resilience given how many tonnes of concrete and other materials are going to be needed to build the new facility, while it will also take away the natural green belt land that is there currently. The amount of CO2 that is going to be emitted during the construction phase of a new facility and the decontamination and then building on site of the existing facility is going to be very harmful.

Add your like! More reaction types are coming soon.

Neutral

over 2 years ago

0

What opportunities would you like to see us explore in our plans for the relocation project to deliver public value and promote collaborative opportunities?

The relocation project has areas allocated for tree planting/woodland. Please can you seriously consider allowing the areas of woodland to be created by the process of natural succession rather than by tree planting. Wild trees are very good at propagating themselves by seed, readily colonise open ground and assemble themselves into natural woodland, if allowed to do so. The seed source is from the local countryside, and so has is from the local genetic stock which also maintains genetic diversety and the woodland created will have an natural species composition and structure. Natural woodland regeneration is a form of re-wilding. There is a common misconception and that tree planting is a good idea when the reality is that it results in the creation of a plantation as opposed the natural woodland in which the species composition and structure is artificially forced. Also the seeds will be from a few limited trees and often not of native provenance resulting in more limited genetic diversity and loss of the local genetic diversity.

Are there any other measures that you would like us to explore for the project to support climate change resilience?

Yes

Please explain why you think this.

Please could you use your influence, to try and dissuade the local authorities from taking out any more farmland from the Cambridge Green Belt and allowing it to be built on. The Relocation the Water Treatment Works to Green Belt land should remain an special case under exceptional circumstances. The Green belt is meant to protect the countryside. Climate change resilience is vitally important for the UK, with food and water security being the top priorty. Of critical importance to the UK is the fact it does not have sufficient farmland to feed the entire population in an emergency, if it is unable to import food. With all the contemporary inputs: fuel fertilisers etc, rationing and a vegetarian diet, it is estimated the current farmland can only support approx. 50 million people. Climate change is already reducing the yields of food in the foreign countries which the UK depends on for food imports and the problem will get much worst. Global agriculture is suffering from soil erosion, and limitations on the amount of phosphate fertiliser (peak phosphate), depleting water sources for irrigation, as well as the effects of climate change, which tends to make the other problems worse. The yield of the UKs agriculture is already being affected by climate change. It must also be remembered that both the UKs and global population are continually increasing putting more pressure on food and water resources. The protection of the Countryside and the farmland is vitally important for the food we eat so that we do not go hungry in the future. The notion of expanding Cambridge and building the Oxford to Cambridge Arc on some of the most productive farmland in the country is insane..

Are there any other measures you think we should consider when preparing for the construction phase of the project?

Please could you try to keep the number of mature trees the construction industry cut down to build this project to a minimum. The construction industry are going through a phase of damaging excessively large areas of Countryside for no real reason other than their own convenience (eg HS2.)

Based on the information provided in our consultation material, overall how supportive are you of our emerging proposals for a new facility at our selected site north of the A14?

Neutral

Please explain why.

The proposals are essentially alright given the constraints imposed by the situation . (The problem is the actual relocation of the sewage to a greenfield site in the Green Belt.)

Add your like! More reaction types are coming soon.

over 2 years ago

0

Based on the information provided in our consultation material, overall how supportive are you of our emerging proposals for a new facility at our selected site north of the A14?

Negative

Please explain why.

The site is in the wrong location. It is on the green belt and should be built beyond the green belt. The 2050 design horizon used in site selection is far too short as 2050 is only 30 years away. The city can be expected the grow extensively during this time period and beyond. Selection of location of the site should take account of this and place the new site outside the green belt further from the city.

Are there any other measures you think we should consider when preparing for the construction phase of the project?

If it goes ahead you need to prioritise creation of the option 3 access route (new junction on the A14) before constructions begin. This will reduce disruption to local residents. 300 vehicles a day is far too much for a small country road and equates to 1 heavy vehicle every 2 minutes (allowing for a 10 hour day!). With so many vehicles local motorists and cyclists will be unable to safely use the Horningsea Road and cycle path for their own day to day purposes.

Are there any other measures that you would like us to explore for the project to support climate change resilience?

Yes

Please explain why you think this.

Build it in a location less prone to flooding and at less high risk for ground water contamination.

Add your like! More reaction types are coming soon.

over 2 years ago

0

What opportunities would you like to see us explore in our plans for the relocation project to deliver public value and promote collaborative opportunities?

Anglian Water should be using it's existing sites to provide more access to the countryside and promote cycle routes and footpaths anyway, not dependent on the development of Honey Hill

Please explain why you think this.

Anglian Water should be using it's existing sites to provide more access to the countryside and promote cycle routes and footpaths anyway, not dependent on the development of Honey Hill

Are there any other measures that you would like us to explore for the project to support climate change resilience?

No

Are there any other measures you think we should consider when preparing for the construction phase of the project?

This consultation isn't about the construction phase of the project, it's about whether it should go ahead at all.

Based on the information provided in our consultation material, overall how supportive are you of our emerging proposals for a new facility at our selected site north of the A14?

Negative

Please explain why.

Honey Hill is not the right site for the development, it's too close to where people live.

Add your like! More reaction types are coming soon.