Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

This relates to the Fen Road site.
1) It is ridiculous that there is no mains sewage when it is so close to the WWTP that is now not going to be moved. Crossing the railway line is now no impediment with horizontal boring. These are clearly permanent dwellings and, whatever the legal casuistry which has allowed Anglian Water to dodge its responsibility to date, the LA and AW should work together to make early provision, rather than each passing the buck to the other ad infinitum. Particularly when the water table is high the current situation is insanitary and malodorous.
2) Proper maintenance needs to be scheduled so that pedestrians have safe access on pavements which are currently unusably and dangerously overgrown for over half the year. The footways by the level crossing need to be properly reinstated so that they are not muddy, slippery and dangerous and have proper dropped kerbs for the many wheelers who now don't use them but wlk equally dangerously in the road.
3) The LA needs to put more pressure on Network Rail to further refine the signalling at Cambridge North station and the level crossing to minimise level crossing downtimes and so reduce the incentive to speed. Particular attention needs giving to the amount of time that the crossing is held when trains are pulling out of Cambridge North for the south.

These comments relate to development site ID 115547, the proposed Fen Road Marina. This site does not appear to be specifically on the current site allocations, AFAICS, but is rolled forward from 2018 in S-LAC, so still documented and partially assessed. "RM1 and Policy H/7: Fen Road – This site is identified in the adopted 2018 Local Plans to provide residential moorings for house boats. We will keep this under review when we consider how to meet the need identified for boat dwellers in the preparation of the draft".
No development should be considered until:
1) Mains sewage should be available in this area of Fen Road, which it currently is not, although much needed.
2) Proper and properly maintained footways need to be provided along the road all the way into town, so that pedestrians have safe access on pavements which are currently unusably and dangerously overgrown for over half the year. The footways by the level crossing need to be properly reinstated so that they are not muddy, slippery and dangerous and have proper dropped kerbs for the many wheelers who now don't use them but walk equally dangerously in the road.
3) The towpath which is likely the preferred route towards town for pedestrians and wheelers, needs proper maintenance, widening and paving from the Chesterton Abbey bridge to its start at Water Lane. It is currently not adequately maintained, the surface has been allowed to deteriorate and so to pool when wet, it is too narrow, particularly during rowing events, and there are dangerous -- supposedly boundary -- protruding battens which derail cyclists.
4) As stated in the site assessment, the level crossing is close to capacity for road traffic with its existing level of signalling control. Apart from the delays, this also leads to speeding and congestion problems on the city side of the level crossing. The LA needs to put more pressure on Network Rail to further refine the signalling at Cambridge North station and the level crossing to minimise level crossing downtimes and so reduce the incentive to speed. Particular attention needs giving to the amount of time that the crossing is held when trains are pulling out of Cambridge North for the south.

Is it time to consider relaxing somewhat the planners interpretation of the 2018 Odournet report which effectively stops any residential development on the NEC railway sidings site? The interpretation is at https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s45641/Appendix%20B%20-%20Technical%20note%20on%20odour%20and%20Cambridge%20WRC.pdf The Odournet report is at https://greatercambridgeplanning.org/media/evqpu2ue/cambridge-water-recycling-centre-odour-impact-assessment-technical-note.pdf
The CWRC is unlikely to move and is now considering increasing capacity for, eg, Waterbeach. I suggest it is time to upgrade the NEC plan, rather than to continue blindly on as if the WWTP was still going to move. I suspect that the main reason for leaving the NEC plan as is because there has been no time to reconsider within the local plan schedule.
The result is that most of the commercial development, with its increase in jobs, is still to go ahead, whilst the area will make no contribution to the housing needs which will accompany that development and are arguably more important to Cambridge's needs. In the absence of Hartree the development will make the housing problem considerable worse. Cambridge Business Park has already stated that it will have to rethink its plans for integrating residential accommodation on the site, with all the benefits that that was to give for place-making.
But should the constraints suggested by the 2018 report remain operative today?
If people, aware that there is an occasional odour problem, nonetheless decide that they want to enjoy the benefits of the new and inviting development close to jobs, transport and facilities and save an hour or so commuting a day, should they not be allowed to make the choice to buy, or to rent social housing in the area?
-- Anglian Water is developing to increase capacity within and further modernise the site. Will this not also result in improved odour control (at a much lower cost than moving to Honey Hill)?
-- Is not AW in any case working to decrease odour such that the 2018 assessment is out of date and going to be more so?
-- If not, should AW not be incentivised to do so?
-- From an experience of working (not residential) right on the edge of the maximum odour contour (10 European odour units per cubic meter) just North of the CWRC it appears that the problem is rare (but still to be taken seriously) rather than chronic as suggested by the contour modelling.
-- Is it time for a new assessment? The work was done 9 years ago.
-- It is surprising that so little complaints data was available. Only 3 were able to be plotted. Clearly these reflect extreme and rare events.
-- For individuals, should the FIDOL criteria be extended to include personal sensitivity and motivation to not care, ie what the advantages are to counterweigh the potential odour?
-- I note that others are mooting retaining the housing element on the Business Park site, despite it being in the restricted zone. This should certainly be explored, particularly as the plant may eventually be moved after all; and should get better odour control as it develops. It would be a pity for such housing to be forgone for ever because of the application of overstrict criteria in the short term. But people moving in need to consent to the known risk. The fact that prestigious companies on the Park are happy to subject their staff to the risk, suggests that it can be lived with.