You may like to read my original document "Comments to Waste Local Plan : Deposit" before you turn to this document.
NB: much of the text below has been OCRed so there may be small typographical errors arising from this process.
The Waste Planning Authority (WPA), which is made up of Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council, replied to our objections with this covering letter:
With the above in mind your representation has been considered, and a response made which may involve a proposed change which it is anticipated will satisfy fully, or in part, your objection(s). Details of each of your objections and the changes that are proposed to meet them have been set out on the attached forms.
I would be grateful if you would consider the proposed response and or change, and confirm (by completing and returning the attached form) whether the proposed change will satisfy your objection, and whether you will be willing to withdraw your objection subject to this change being made to the Plan.
If you feel that your objection is not totally met, please outline the outstanding issues. This will help us to have a clear understanding of the issues that may proceed to the Public Local Plan Inquiry.
With regard to the next stage in the preparation of the Plan it is anticipated that the Revised Deposit Plan (which will incorporate changes that are proposed to meet objections) will be published in autumn 2001. This will be subject to public consultation for a six week period, and you will be advised when the Plan is published. Following this, it is anticipated that a Public Local Plan Inquiry into unresolved objections will be held in early 2002.
Thank you for your co-operation, 1 look forward to receiving your reply by 28 May 2001 [subsequently amended to 15th June].
Objection to the inclusion of the Anglian Water Site as a Major Waste Facility:
i) site forms part of the Cambridge Northern Fringe. Planning for this area is currently under review, it's designation for waste purposes is premature.
ii) It is likely that the Northern Fringe review will result in development of the surrounding land for residential, retail and office use, the proposed facility will be counter to WLP9
iii) disturbance is already caused to the residents and users of surrounding houses & retail units due to the smell from the existing sewage works. New uses will increase these problems. This is again contrary to WLP9
iv) question logic in placing site inside A14 will worsen the already severe traffic problem on the Al309
v) object to EfW as potential use. Contrary to WLP9
vi) The village already suffers from the smell from Milton Land Fill and the existing sewage works. Already taking more than our fair share of the 'fall out'from the disposal of Cambridgeshire waste.
vii) City Council favours a pyrolysis plant. This is largely unproven technology. The idea of building an essentially experimental plant in a position where surrounding houses would be exposed to the plume is "foolhardy". Question suitability of the site against WLP9.
Further consideration is being given, in the context of developing the Cambridge Northern Fringe Study, to determining the most appropriate land uses for this area.
At present the Waste Planning Authority believes the Cambridge Northern Fringe to be an appropriate location for a major waste management facility to serve the needs of the Cambridge area.
Should this site go forward there are a number of different options regarding the type of facility that could be located on the site. Energy from waste is just one option; others include a materials recovery facility, a mixed waste processing facility, indoor composting and anaerobic digestion.
In the event that proposals come forward for a waste facility (including energy from waste) measures are in place, through the planning and waste licensing regimes, that will ensure that any proposals will meet current regulations in respect of pollution prevention and control, and material planning considerations such as residential amenity issues, and traffic and highways consideration will also be taken into account.
Amend Plan to accord with the outcome of the Cambridge Northern Fringe Study.
'Policy Issues Arising' should include WLP9 under Anglia Water site, WLP17(m)
[Identical to previous objection]
Amend Plan to accord with the outcome of the Cambridge Northern Fringe Study.
Object to any proposals to include Milton Landfill under this policy. Oppose for following reasons:
i) Contrary to WLP8
ii) Contrary to WLP9. Would have adverse impact on community and recreational use of restored landfill site, which expect to be agreed as part of the extension to permission on the site.
iii) Any major waste management facility would less than 250m from house within the Parish.
Milton Landfill site has not been allocated as a Preferred Site for a Major Waste Management Facility (landfill or non-landfill); it does not fit well with the site selection criteria set out in paragraph 8.17.2 of the Plan, specifically planning policy as it is located in the Green Belt.
Thus any proposals for waste development will be determined in accordance with policies in the Development Plan, including policies WLP8, WLP3, WLP9, WLP1 7, and WLP27 of the Waste Local Plan. In this case exceptional circumstances will have to be demonstrated in order to override national green belt planning policy and Policy WLP8 of the Waste Local Plan.
Concerned that existing capacity at Milton landfill is included in Plan calculations despite end date which means at current rate of fill it will not be used by then. Strongly object to WLP assuming that current application to extend life will be approved. Implies CCC has made its mind up regardless.
In order to be able to assess the likely future requirements for waste management capacity within the Plan area it was necessary to consider what capacity already has planning permission. A number of existing sites including Milton have time limited planning permissions which expire during the life of the Plan period. It is conceivable some of these may not be completed at current rates of infill. However it is quite possible that the rate of infill may change overtime and therefore it is not practical or realistic to discount capacity at existing landfill sites on the grounds that at current rates of fill the site will not be filled by the time a planning permission expires.
Policy WLP18 safeguards existing waste management facilities including Milton, however in the supporting text (paragraph 8.18.2) it is made clear that in safeguarding such sites does not imply that additional planning permissions would be granted.
In the case of Milton Landfill site, this has been the subject of a recent planning application to extend the life of the site. On balance and considering issues such as site restoration of an already approved landform the County Council have granted an extension to the life of this site, but only until 2010. The fact that Waste Local Plan identified that this was existing permitted landfill capacity at Milton when the Deposit Plan was drafted did not imply that the County Council had made up its mind on the application at the stage.
Looking at them in reverse order the last one confirms that placing an incinerator or other permanent facilities at the land fill site would be contrary to the WLP. Good news.
The third objection we should merely note as evidence for any judicial review.
This leaves the first two which we originally made as one objection. In essence the WPA are saying that they continue to consider the AWA site to be a valid one for a major waste management facility and stalling making any actual decision pending the Northern Fringe Study.
They're also refusing to consider WLP9 (protecting surrounding uses), even though we would clearly be affected by such use, both in the village and in Chesterton Fen, as would Chesterton and the Science Park.