4.0 PREFERRED ALLOCATION - RELOCATION OF MILTON WASTE WATER TREATMENT WORKS

4.1 Milton Waste Water Treatment Works lies in the eastern part of the Cambridge Northern Fringe lying between the A14 and the edge of Cambridge. The majority of the area, including the Milton Waste Water Treatment site, is in Cambridge City; and the remainder (mainly Chesterton Sidings) lies in South Cambridgeshire District.

4.2 The need to consider an alternative location for the Works arises from pressures for housing development in the Cambridge Sub-Region, and the consequential proposals for redevelopment on the Cambridge Northern Fringe contained in the recently adopted Cambridge City Local Plan. The Cambridge Northern Fringe (East) is a strategic area that has been identified for sustainable redevelopment, which requires the Waste Water Treatment Works to be relocated.

4.3 The Core Strategy (Preferred Option MW15) states that:

‘In order to facilitate the redevelopment of the Cambridge Northern Fringe (East), the Site Specific Development Plan Document will identify a site specific allocation for the relocation of the Milton Waste Water Treatment Works.’

4.4 The SSP takes forward the provision of the Core Strategy by identifying a preferred site for the relocation of the Milton Waste Water Treatment Works. All sites considered have been subject to the Plan’s site selection process, and in addition site selection criteria, specific to the requirements of the potential new Waste Water Treatment Works have also been taken into account. These specific criteria, set out below, were refined through the Issues and Options consultation:

· A site of 20 – 30 hectares to include landscaping areas

· Good access from the existing highway network which would entail easy access from the A or B class road network

· Avoiding the use of access for lorries through villages

· Avoiding the need to access the site by way of a level crossing over the main line railway

· Presumption against using land in the flood plain of the River Cam unless this can be achieved without the risk of pollution from flooding, extending the flooding pattern to additional areas and that the engineering feasibility of building subsurface structure and low relief buildings is not compromised

· Having a stand-off of not less than 400 metres from residential property

· Minimising the risk of residential property in the vicinity being in a ‘high risk’ area for exposure to any potential odours, given the direction of the prevailing wind

· Use of land for the development and related infrastructure (e.g. pipeline) that would not prejudice the survival of any nationally protected nature conservation areas e.g. SSSIs

· Ability of the site to minimise impact on the Green Belt by being able to support mitigation measures to minimise visual intrusion through land re-contouring and additional landscaping

· Avoidance of any Schedule Ancient Monuments and to consider the risk to accommodating the development associated with any known areas of high archaeological potential

· Relative proximity to the River Cam to allow efficient discharge of treated effluent

· Proximate to the existing infrastructure to permit the efficient conveyance by pipeline to the new works.

4.5 A significant public response was prompted by the suggestion to relocate the Milton Waste Water Treatment Works from Milton to Honey Hill, Horningsea. A summary of the representations received is set out below:

Support

1. Area has no apparent technical disadvantages
2. Relatively close to existing wastewater treatment works at Milton
3. Relatively close to River Cam discharge point
4. Area of search is extensive and provides flexibility
5. Close to trunk road network
6. Can be worked in harmony with other proposals for area

Object

1. No EIA or SEA required as part of the LDF process
2. Area lies in green belt – contrary to Green Belt policy
3. Required future expansion of site would further erode green belt.
4. Contrary to Planning policy documents e.g. County Structure Plan
5. Site is open and visible and may cause adverse visual impact
6. Area of open landscape should not be lost – amenity value
7. Adverse impact on roads and associated traffic; reduced highway safety
8. Adverse impact on Wicken Fen Vision project and Bridge of Reeds project
9. Could set precedent for future housing or waste development north of the A14
10. Could damage rural character/ green separation between Fen Ditton & Horningsea, & villages & Cambridge
11. No consideration of other alternative sites for re-location
12. No evidence that site is suitable for proposed use – may be contaminated
13. Not possible to evaluate site without details of environmental & health impact assessment
14. Site is adjacent to County Wildlife Site & only 2km from closest SSSI
15. Land use and scale are incompatible with surrounding landscape character – should be located in industrial area / Brownfield site
16. Problems of smell may arise at receptors of local housing – especially through prevailing winds
17. Too close to residential areas – would cause adverse impact on residential amenity
18. Possible pollution to waterways
19. There is sufficient expansion/ modernisation space at existing water treatment site at Milton – no need to move existing site.
20. Possible impacts on flood protection/ drainage/ water management areas of the district / environmental features e.g chalk geology at site – major aquifer; water meadows
21. May generate Noise
22. Justification for moving works to release Brownfield land for housing is not sufficient.
23. Substantial financial costs including unsustainable running costs; reduces sustainability of the treatment works – need to pump further
24. Site is further from the river than the existing site
25. Would preclude residential expansion at site due to incompatible land uses
26. Impact on ecology & biodiversity – destruction of natural habitat
27. May cause air pollution
28. Impact upon footpaths, bridleways and riverside towpaths
29. Proximity to Conservation Area
30. Impact upon Primary School
31. Unacceptable lack of consultation and information
32. Adverse effect upon livelihood of farming tenant
33. Would attract rats flies and birds which would endanger aircraft/ birds themselves
34. No mitigation plans proposed
35. Search area is so large that it is not really ‘one option’
36. No evidence to show why this area has been chosen
37. Loss of important arable land
38. Very strong local opposition
39. Electricity pylons may need re-siting
40. Could recycle water rather than discharge to river – so other locations viable
41. Inaccuracies in maps – sites A & B shown in different sites; Buffer Zone inaccurate
42. Horningsea is an Historic Site of Special Interest – potential archaeological impacts
43. Social impacts on villages

Support in part

1. Area of search should be reduced in size to reduce possible impacts on residential amenity
2. Bridge outside of area of search would need including in development
3. Appropriate programme of archaeological assessment needed

4.6 In response to representations two other sites (large areas of search) were included for evaluation in the site selection process. These were:

Milton Area of Search

Milton / Landbeach Area of Search

4.7 The full results of the site selection process are summarised in Site Profiles. The overall summary of each of the sites is set out below:

Site SS5 Site 1 Honey Hill Area of Search, Summary of Site Appraisal:

‘This site is located within green belt land. The availability of the land could be an issue, and possible impact on the County Wildlife Site drains, without mitigation, could have a negative impact on local wildlife. The area is also one of high archaeological potential, and as a result, a full assessment would need to occur. In addition to these factors, the site is located above a major aquifer and also within close proximity to the villages of Horningsea and Fen Ditton. There is considerable local opposition to this site being pursued. A number of listed buildings are a short distance away, along with Conservation Areas. Whilst the remaining categories are scored at neutral or better, the site could impact upon the spatial objectives of the Wicken Fen Vision and Bridge of Reeds initiative. The preferred access would be via High Ditch from the A1303; in the light of this an additional area has been appraised lying to the east of Low Fen Drove Way. In summary this site is not unconstrained, but the preferred area would be a site which lies both sides of Low Fen Drove Way, bordering the A14.’

Site SS5 Site 2 Milton Area of Search, Summary of Site Appraisal:

‘The site is located within green belt land. Consideration has been given to the likely impacts on sensitive receptors within the area of search. It has been assessed that in combination these sensitive receptors would severely limit the land available to accommodate the development. A permanent travellers site is within the boundary and there are a small number of other residential dwellings in close proximity. The site is located within an area of high archaeological potential. As a result, appropriate mitigation methods are required. A right of way footpath also cuts through the middle of the area of search, which might be affected should plans proceed. Most other categories score neutral. In combination, the assessments indicate that there is insufficient unconstrained land available to accommodate the development’

Site SS5 Site 3 Milton / Landbeach Area of Search, Summary of Site Appraisal:

‘This site is located within greenbelt land and Milton conservation area also extends over the boundary of the site. A sensitive receptor in the form of a farmhouse is within the site borders, which should be taken into consideration. The area also holds archaeological value, and appropriate mitigation methods will be required. In addition, other significant concerns relate to the site being located within flood zone 2 or land liable to flood, a Grade II* listed building being situated within 500m of the site and residential amenity. All remaining categories are scored at neutral or better. In combination, the assessments indicate that there is insufficient unconstrained land available to accommodate the development.’

4.8 The results of the site selection process have concluded that the Milton area of search and the Landbeach area of search are unable to accommodate the relocation of the Treatment Works. The Honey Hill assessment has suggested that an area encompassing Low Fen Drove is preferred, but it should be recognised that the site is not unconstrained and strong local opposition exists.

4.9 The following site is therefore the preferred option for the relocation of the Milton Waste Water Treatment Works:

Land at Honey Hill, Horningsea

This will comprise a site specific allocation, shown in the Proposals Map (SSP13) in Appendix 4.

4.10 Other sites that were considered but not preferred were:

Milton area of search

Milton / Landbeach area of search.