Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 211186

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

It appears that the Topic Paper has not been updated following the Government announcement of funding withdrawal to support the Cambridge WWTW relocation. We generally support Anglian Water’s view that the Local Plan consider safeguarding land for new infrastructure that they may need to provide to support development.

Comment

Representation ID: 211187

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We are pleased to see that the IDP references the WCS evidence document and includes the need for investment at WWTWs to accommodate the growth outlined in
the Local Plan. Future needs are also referenced, along with the current engagement Anglian Water is undertaking with key external stakeholders to find solutions to capacity
challenges, including around solutions for Cambridge WWTW following the withdrawal of funding for the relocation project. We note the IDP may be updated with further information on priority investments once the next version of the DWMP is published and capacity solutions have been identified. We encourage an update to the document to ensure the evidence base remains sufficient over the lifetime of the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 211188

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

We are pleased to see that the detailed WCS scope covers a number of positive areas, including but not limited to summarising growth projections in relation to DWF uplift, and we welcome consideration of climate change impacts on waste water treatment. It is really important that evidence within the WCS is capable of informing growth allocations and the Plan can be positively prepared through robust scrutiny of any
environmental risks resulting from growth The WCS needs to be updated accordingly, and we recommend maintaining as a living document, which will enable updated data and information to be captured at the earliest opportunity We strongly recommend that the WCS considers running SAGIS modelling to understand more detailed analysis of growth projections.

Comment

Representation ID: 211189

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

The WCS does identify that Uttons Drove WWTW is
over capacity (Table 4.11) and will continue to exceed over the lifetime of the Plan period unless upgrades are implemented. The discharge is currently to a tributary of the Swavesey Drain, which does not have the capacity to accommodate the necessary increased flows that would accompany growth. The WCS should capture the wider challenges of the receiving water body from Uttons Drove WWTW.

Comment

Representation ID: 211190

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Section 2.3.4 (WFD) We note that the most up-to-date, available, information has been used in this WCS. Please be aware that 2025 classifications are due to be published this year in preparation for the next revision to the River Basin Management Plans (Cycle 4); we recommend the WCS be updated when revised classifications are released to reflect any revision since 2019. This will assist in decisions around suitability of development location and/or phasing requirements over the lifetime of the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 211191

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Section 4.4.5 (WCS). There are four identified WWTW that are cross-boundary. It is unclear if the assessments undertaken include known or planned growth in the neighbouring LPA for those locations. There could be an impact on potential development delivery for GCSP if existing headroom is already taken by growth in those neighbouring locations. It is therefore essential that GCSP liaise with Anglian Water on an ongoing basis, as described in Section 4.9.19.

Comment

Representation ID: 211192

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Section 4.9.19 (WCS): We welcome the recommendation for GCSP to continue to update Anglian Water on
future development and changes to growth allocations to ensure capacity remains available as and when needed.

Comment

Representation ID: 211193

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Section 4.11.1 (WCS): The statements in this paragraph are not correct. The Environment Agency does not reassess a WWTWs DWF where we anticipate that it will increase above the permitted value. It is Anglian Water’s responsibility to plan to remain in compliance. Where Anglian Water anticipate they will exceed their permitted DWF, then they must apply for an increase. We would then re-evaluate the associated numerical limits, Flow to Full
Treatment setting, and Storm Storage Capacity (where applicable) as these are linked to DWF. A permit alteration may be undertaken as part of the Water Industry National
Environment Programme (WINEP) where there is a relevant driver; these do not normally relate to altering the permitted DWF.

Comment

Representation ID: 211194

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Section 4.11.4 of WCS – TAL: There is no TAL for Suspended Solids. This number is site specific (usually between 10- 20mg/l) and generally related to the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).

Comment

Representation ID: 211195

Received: 30/01/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Section 4.11.13 of WCS – Cambridge WWTW stretch target: The statement around the Environment Agency reviewing this limit given the withdrawal of funding is not correct. The stretch target is included in the AMP8 WINEP obligation for this site. If Anglian Water want to change or remove this target, then they will need to apply for an alteration to the WINEP which we would review in conjunction with DEFRA. We have had no such communication from Anglian Water.