Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 59591

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)

Representation Summary:

CPRE strongly opposes the proposed move of the existing Cambridge Waste Water Treatment plant from
its current location into the Green Belt. Anglian Water claim in their submission to the Planning
Inspectorate requesting a Scoping Opinion that it is local planning authority pressure for the developments
in North East Cambridge which is forcing the move. However, in the Scoping Opinion for the proposed
relocation prepared by the Planning Inspectorate, on page 6 of Appendix 2, the Shared Planning Service
response states: “We would like to clarify that the relocation of the Cambridge WWTP is not a
“requirement” of the North-East Cambridge Area Action Plan and must not be referred to as such. This is
because we are not requiring the relocation, but the NEC AAP7 and the emerging joint Local Plan have
identified the opportunity that the relocation creates for homes and jobs in the North-East Cambridge
area.” So, we can only assume that the North East Area Action Plan can be progressed without the
financially and environmentally costly move of the WWTP. This is very welcome news.

Full text:

Infrastructure policies
86. CPRE are very concerned about current infrastructure proposals for the Cambridge region and the damage and cost they are likely to cause.
87. CPRE strongly opposes the proposed move of the existing Cambridge Waste Water Treatment plant from
its current location into the Green Belt. Anglian Water claim in their submission to the Planning
Inspectorate requesting a Scoping Opinion that it is local planning authority pressure for the developments
in North East Cambridge which is forcing the move. However, in the Scoping Opinion for the proposed
relocation prepared by the Planning Inspectorate, on page 6 of Appendix 2, the Shared Planning Service
response states: “We would like to clarify that the relocation of the Cambridge WWTP is not a
“requirement” of the North-East Cambridge Area Action Plan and must not be referred to as such. This is
because we are not requiring the relocation, but the NEC AAP7 and the emerging joint Local Plan have
identified the opportunity that the relocation creates for homes and jobs in the North-East Cambridge
area.” So, we can only assume that the North East Area Action Plan can be progressed without the
financially and environmentally costly move of the WWTP. This is very welcome news.
88. CPRE believes that the current local government structure in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire with
four different authorities claiming responsibility for some aspects of transport planning and delivery,
coupled with the divided responsibility for rail infrastructure between Network Rail and East West Rail
Company Ltd, prevents any form of joined-up thinking about transport.
89. CPRE believes that all public transport planning in the county should be practically and actually brought
under the control of the Combined Authority with delivery by the County Council, National Highways and
Network Rail as appropriate.
90. CPRE are particularly concerned by the activities of the unelected Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP). Its
proposed busways will be a disaster for the countryside and communities and an expensive duplication of
facilities that could be provided by road and rail using mostly existing infrastructure. The responsibilities of
this body should be re-allocated to those identified in paragraph 89 above in order that the GCP can be
disbanded.
91. CPRE are concerned that East-West Rail has failed to consider local transport needs in its planning and as a
consequence is currently following a route in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire which will maximise
damage to the countryside, deliver the least useful local transport facility and not integrate well with the
main rail network. Local MPs have taken up this case with government but so far to no avail. The danger is
that the Treasury will halt the project because of lack of return on investment and Cambridge will be left
without the core of what could have been a climate-friendly metro service.
92. There is a desperate need for an integrated transport plan for the whole county and the current approach
will not realise one.
93. CPRE supports Policy I/DI: Digital infrastructure.

Attachments: