Agenda Item No: 6
THE CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH MINERALS AND WASTE PLAN –
Date: 26 September 2006
From: Deputy Chief Executive, Environment and Community
Electoral division(s): All
Forward Plan ref: 2005/036 Key decision: Yes
Purpose: To consider the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Minerals and Waste Plan – Preferred Options
Recommendation: Cabinet is recommended to:
i) Approve the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Minerals and Waste Plan (Preferred Options) for the
purposes of public consultation; and
ii) Delegate to the portfolio holder for Environment
and Community Services, in consultation with the
Deputy Chief Executive of Environment and
Community Services, the authority to approve the
final Plan for public consultation, including any
amendments required (that do not materially affect
the content of the Plan).
Officer contact: Member contact:
Name: Ann Barnes Name: Councillor John Reynolds
Post: Principal Planning Officer Portfolio Environment and Community
Minerals and Waste Team Services
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Email: email@example.com
Tel: 01223 717630 Tel: 01223 717228
CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH MINERALS AND WASTE PLAN
– PREFERRED OPTIONS
1.1 In January 2005 the County Council adopted the Cambridgeshire Minerals
and Waste Development Scheme. This is, in effect, a project plan for
minerals and waste policy work that will be undertaken in the next 3 years.
The Scheme includes details of the documents to be prepared, including
their status, timetable for preparation, and resources required.
1.2 A key element of the work to be undertaken in the next 3 years is the
preparation of the new Minerals and Waste Development Plan, which is
being prepared jointly with Peterborough City Council, under the new
planning system i.e. the Local Development Framework System.
1.3 The Minerals and Waste Development Plan will be vital in ensuring that
construction materials are available to support the growth agenda in this
area, and that sustainable waste management is available for new and
existing communities. The Plan period is 2003 to 2021.
1.4 The new Plan will comprise 3 elements:
Core Strategy: a document setting out the strategic vision and
objectives, and including a suite of development control policies to
guide minerals and waste development
Earith / Mepal Area Action Plan: this is an area where there are
interrelated minerals and waste issues, and other issues such as
transport, flood protection, and opportunities to make sustainable use
of land and water resources together with a significant contribution to
the achievement of bio-diversity targets through quarry restoration.
Site Specific Policies: a document setting out site specific proposals for
mineral and waste development and supporting site specific policies
These documents will be supported by a Proposals Map.
1.5 The main stages of the timetable for the preparation of the Plan are as
a. Informal Issues and Options June - July 2005 (completed)
Stakeholder Consultation January – April 2006 (completed)
b. Preferred Options Consultation November – December 2006
c. Submission of Plan to Secretary of September 2007
d. Consultation on Submitted Plan September / October 2007
e. Examination May 2008
f. Adoption February 2009
The informal Issues and Options consultations sought views on the
direction of future mineral and waste policy, and valuable feedback was
received on matters that relate to the Core Strategy. The aspirations of
stakeholders, including the minerals and waste industry, were also shared
in the Issues and Options consultations, and some suggestions provoked
a strong response (opposing the suggestions) at certain sites. In particular:
the relocation of the Milton Waste Water treatment Work To Honey Hill,
the location of a Household Waste Recycling Centre at Glebe Farm,
large scale mineral extraction and a new kiln at Barrington Cement
Works, Barrington (these aspirations for Barrington have now been
In total over 1,600 representations were received. All responses have
been acknowledged and respondents are on the mailing list for the next
stage of the Plan. Representations have been taken into account in the
site selection process. A summary of the representations is now on the
1.6 Following consultation at the Issues and Options stage, work has
progressed. All of the sites proposed have been evaluated against pre-
determined criteria in a process overseen by a cross party Member Group.
The results are presented as the Council’s Preferred Options Plan. The
Plan has been drafted for Members consideration. A Members Seminar
was held on 1st September, with the Development Control Committee
considering the Plan on 4 September, and the Environment, Waste and
Business Service Development Group (SDG) considering it on 8
September. Comments from these Groups are considered in Section 5.
For ease of consideration this report on the Plan is split into sections:
Section 1: Core Strategy
Section 2: Earith Mepal Area Action Plan
Section 3: Site Specific Proposals
Section 4: Monitoring and Implementation, Conclusions and
1.7 There are also the following appendices that have already been provided
for the Development Control Committee and as they represent another
200 plus pages have not been attached to this report. The appendices can
be found at the following link to the Development Control Committee:
(Appendix 1: Core Strategy
Appendix 2: Earith Mepal Area Action Plan
Appendix 3: Summary Table of the Results of the Site Selection Process
Appendix 4: Proposals Maps for Preferred Allocations in Cambridgeshire
(minerals and waste)
Copies of these Appendices, Development Control Committee, and
Environment, Waste and Business SDG Reports and Background
Papers referred to in this report, including the Site Profiles
(approximately 110), and a set of A3 colour Proposals Maps, are
available for inspection by Members in Member Services, Shire Hall.
1.8 The following consultants advice has been used in preparing this Plan:
Jacobs Babtie – Statistical Basis for Waste, waste forecasting and
Land Use Consultants – Sustainability Appraisal / Strategic
RPS – Ecological Appraisal of potential sites
LDA – Landscape Capacity and Visual Impact Assessment of potential
Atkins – Advice on highway capacity and safety in respect of potential
2.0 SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL
2.1 The preparation of the new Plan is subject to a full sustainability appraisal
(SA), in line with the UK and European law. The purpose of the ‘SA’ is to
promote sustainable development by identifying the social, economic and
environment effects of a plan to promote positive outcomes and minimise
any negative impacts.
2.2 Land Use Consultants (LUC) has been appointed to carry out the SA; this
will help ensure that the SA is independent. The SA process is continuous
and informs and shapes the development of the Plan. A formal
sustainability appraisal has also been undertaken on the Plan, and its
conclusions have been taken into account in coming to Preferred Options.
Summaries for the SA appraisal process and findings are included in the
Plan; a full SA document will be published alongside the Plan when this is
made available for public consultation.
3.0 SUMMARY OF KEY MATTERS
i) Overall Proposals
The proposals in the Preferred Options plan will meet all anticipated needs
for minerals and waste management facilities up to 2021. The proposals
seek to achieve the best balance of environmental, social and economic
factors in the interests of sustainable development.
In the interests of sustainable transport the plan suggests that wider use
should be made of existing freight transport infrastructure (railheads and
port) for the movement of minerals and waste in the future.
ii) Mineral Extraction Proposals
In respect of the future extraction of aggregate minerals for the
construction industry it is recommended that some 30 million tonnes of
sand and gravel bearing land be released for mineral extraction to meet
the needs of the growth agenda in the Plan area. Future gravel extraction
is to be primarily concentrated in fen areas notably near Whittlesey (in
association with brick clay), Block Fen, Mepal and Cottenham. One site at
Little Paxton is also included, as the last extension to an existing quarry,
which once completed will become a large nature conservation area with
Given that there are adequate reserves of limestone, no additional
allocations for limestone extraction are being made.
iii) Block Fen, Mepal
Very significant levels of future mineral extraction are expected to be
undertaken at Block Fen, Mepal where officers are advocating a unique
approach to quarry restoration, which would result in the creation of large
water storage areas adjacent to the internationally recognised nature
conservation area of the Ouse Washes. Creation of water storage
reservoirs through mineral extraction is being recommended as the means
of managing future flooding so that the ecological value of the Ouse
Washes can be safeguarded and improved in the long term.
iv) Minerals – Barrington
Cement is another essential commodity in the construction industry and
following the withdrawal of a much larger controversial scheme for a new
kiln and related major quarry, a small extension to the Barrington Quarry is
being recommended for inclusion in the plan in order to balance the
chemical properties of the wider long-term mineral reserve.
v) Minerals – Other specialist requirements
Other extensions to specialist mineral operations at Steeple Morden,
Burwell and near Wicken are recommended for inclusion in the plan to
maintain a steady supply of mineral to end users over the lifetime of the
vi) Minerals – Phasing out of extraction in Earith/Somersham area
Whilst meeting the future needs of the construction industry from other
parts of the County it is recommended that sand and gravel operations in
the Earith/Somersham areas be phased out due to access difficulties,
which are unlikely to be resolved.
vii) Waste Management Proposals
With over 80 million tonnes of waste predicted to be managed over the
next 15 years it is clear that the future management of waste will be a
major challenge. Despite the increasing pressure for effective
management of non-hazardous waste, officers are recommending that no
new provision need be made for landfill. Instead a major shift in favour of a
new network of waste recycling and recovery plants is suggested to deal
with waste generated within the county. The Site Specific Proposals plan
identifies 25 new sites, including seven County Council Household Waste
Recycling Facilities to deliver more sustainable waste management across
a range of waste streams. A number of temporary recycling sites, notably
at Flint Cross and Warboys, are recommended to become permanent
facilities whilst a number of smaller facilities should be also be expanded
so that they can recycle more or a wider range of material in the future e.g.
Whitemoor Yard, March.
viii) Apportionment of London’s Waste
The precise requirement to accommodate waste from London has yet to
be confirmed through the Regional planning process. However, initial
studies suggest that the requirement could be increased from the current
assumption of 3 million tonnes to 5.7 million tonnes over the plan period.
There is sufficient capacity to accommodate such levels but there will need
to be very clear safeguards ensuring sustainable transport is available and
that only treated residues are imported for landfill.
ix) Household Waste Recycling Centres
To encourage more recycling of household waste the establishment of an
enhanced network of Household Waste Recycling Centres to serve
existing and future population is recommended. These should be sited in
major areas of new development, the majority of which would involve the
use of brownfield land.
x) Waste Management in Cambridge Southern Fringe/ Glebe Farm and
other major developments
To serve the Cambridge Southern fringe development area the reuse of a
former water treatment works off A10 near Hauxton is recommended. If
this site can be secured it would mean that Glebe Farm would not be
required for waste management purposes and could be allocated for
residential or other urban uses. For other major development areas
suitable sites for household waste recycling should be identified through
the master planning process.
xi) Hazardous Waste
Whilst Cambridgeshire is not a large-scale producer of waste with
hazardous properties, for some wastes such as asbestos, recycling or
treatment is not an option and consequently an extension of the existing
hazardous waste landfill site taking stable and non-reactive waste as part
of quarry restoration near Thornhaugh, Peterborough has been suggested.
Dealing with other difficult wastes such as infectious clinical waste this is
best done close to the source and the plan would make provision on-site
at Addenbrooke’s Hospital for the replacement of the existing energy to
waste plant, which incinerates clinical waste and provides heating for the
xii) Relocation of Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Works
The approval of the Cambridge City Local Plan means that a new location
will be required for the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Works if the
planned redevelopment of the Cambridge Northern Fringe is to proceed.
The very high level of local concern has been taken into account, but it
was not possible to find a more favourable Area of Search than Honey Hill.
However the detailed location identified within the Area of search is at the
eastern edge, the most distant from either Fen Ditton or Horningsea
Any new works will need to be modern, high quality, integrated into the
landscape and with full environmental mitigation.
xiii) Inert Waste
The construction sector is expected to generate significant volumes of
inert waste from new house building and the plan proposes that after
recycling, residues can assist in quarry restoration, particularly in the Block
Fen, Mepal area.
4.0 MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the production
of an Annual Monitoring Report to be submitted to the Secretary of State.
The primary purpose of the Annual Monitoring Reports is to report on:
progress on implementation of the Minerals and Waste Development
Scheme and preparation of Minerals and Waste Development
the extent to which policies in Minerals and Waste Development
Documents are being achieved.
4.2 The Minerals and Waste Plan is required to set out monitoring objectives
through the identification of targets and indicators.
4.3 The annual monitoring of the Plans objectives, policies, targets and
milestones is an important tool providing feedback for consideration of any
corrective measures necessary through the cycle of Plan Monitor
Manage. It will be through the monitoring process that any need to modify
or review the Plan is likely to be identified. Therefore arrangements will be
in place to ensure that the Plan remains relevant and up to date.
5.1 The Minerals and Waste Plan (Preferred Options) has been considered by
The County Council’s Development Control Committee, and the
Environment, Waste and Business Service Development Group (SDG).
Appendix 1 provides a full summary of their recommendations to Cabinet.
5.2 The main points arising from the Development Control Committee and
the Preferred Options Plan was accepted as the basis for public
consultation in November / December 2006, however,
that the Preferred Option for the relocation of the Milton Waste Water
Treatment Works i.e. Honey Hill Horningsea / Fen Ditton, proceed to
consultation, with a recognition that further work is required in respect
to illustrative material on potential proposals for a new Works.
the Development Control Committee recommended that no site
specific proposal be ‘preferred’ in relation to the location of a
Household Waste Recycling Centre in the Cambridge Southern Fringe.
It was suggested that views be invited on an Area of Search, which
would encompass Glebe Farm Trumpington, the Former Bayer Crop
Science Site, Hauxton; Land near the M11; and the Cambridge
Southern Fringe as a whole.
The SDG considered this matter, taking into account advice from the
Government Office that that at this stage any Plan needs to identify a
Preferred Option, and that if this is not the case the Plan could be
found to be procedurally unsound. On this advice the SDG concluded
that based on the site analysis that had taken place, the Former Bayer
Crop Science Site (West) should be identified as the Council’s
5.3 Peterborough City Council are also considering the Plan through Member
process, with their Cabinet due to consider the approval of the Plan for
public consultation on 25 September 2006. Any points arising from this
process will be reported verbally. The most significant recommendation to
date relates to the request for inclusion of a policy in relation to planning
obligations. This stems from Peterborough City Council’s work on the
development of a Planning Obligations Strategy. A policy reference in the
Plan is needed to enable the preparation of a Supplementary Planning
Document on planning obligations, including minerals and waste
development. Including a general policy on planning obligations would
enable similar work to be carried out in Cambridgeshire if considered
appropriate in the future.
5.4 It is anticipated that some amendments will be required to the Plan as the
site specific proposals are written up, and recommendations from Member
process (in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough) are included. It is therefore
recommended that Cabinet delegate to the portfolio holder for
Environment and Community Services, in consultation with the Deputy
Chief Executive of Environment and Community Services, the authority to
agree the final Plan for public consultation, including any amendments
required that do not materially affect the content of the Plan.
5.5 In coming to any conclusion it is important to recognise that this Preferred
Options stage is only the first formal stage of the process of the Plan.
Following the consultation on the Preferred Options Plan there will be
another opportunity for the Council’s to reconsider the Plan before
submitting it to the Secretary of State for his consideration in Autumn
2007; and undertaking a second formal stage of public consultation. After
this point there is also a public examination of the Plan, to be held by an
independent Planning Inspector. The Plan process is not expected to be
completed i.e. the Plan adopted until February 2009.
6.0 RISK MANAGEMENT
6.1 A risk management process has been carried out in accordance with the
Council’s risk management strategy, and no key risks that cannot be
satisfactorily mitigated have been identified. A copy of the risk register and
matrix in respect of this issue is available from Frederick Gentile, Head of
7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 The timetable for the preparation of the Plan is in the adopted Minerals
and Waste Development Scheme. Progress against this timetable must be
monitored on an annual basis, and is a target that is linked to the
distribution of Planning Delivery Grant. To date progress has been in
accordance with the Scheme, the next milestone is consultation on the
Preferred Options Plan in November / December 2006. Failure to meet
this target would affect the amount of Planning Delivery Grant the Council
Source Documents Location
Jacobs Babtie – Cambridgeshire and Peterborough: All Source Documents
Statistical Basis for the Waste Development Document are available for
RPS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Members in Member
Waste Development Plan Document Ecological Appraisal Services, Shire Hall.
of Potential Site
Minerals Background Paper
LDA Proposed Minerals and Waste Site Landscape and
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste
Plan Site Specific Proposals Plan – Site Profiles
SUMMARY OF DECISIONS DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AND COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENT WASTE AND
THE CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH MINERALS AND WASTE PLAN – PREFERRED OPTIONS
On future provision for minerals (Core Strategy Key Matter 1 and Site Officer Comment
Specific Proposals Plan paragraph 3.0)
The Development Control Committee was in general content with the Noted.
proposals to make additional sand and gravel allocations and to make no
additional allocation for limestone.
The SDG also supported the proposals to make additional sand and
gravel allocations and to make no additional allocation for limestone.
On the Earith / Mepal Action Plan Area (Core Strategy Key Matter 2 and Officer Comment
report Section 2)
The Development Control Committee supported the preferred approach to
expand extraction and provide enhanced opportunities for water Concerns expressed over water supply are noted. As part of
management in the Area, while stressing the importance of maintaining the preparation of the Block Fen / Langwood Fen Master Plan
the current appearance of the Ouse Washes, and expressing concerns this issue can be examined in further detail.
about the future demand for water, including drinking water. This was also
supported by the SDG.
The Preferred Option was also supported by the SDG. A member Agreed. The reference to transport issues can be expanded.
expressed concern regarding the transport implications for surrounding The Plan proposes that access will be onto an A class road at
areas and it was suggested that this matter be expanded in the Plan, so the new Block Fen roundabout. Phasing of development
that there is a clear opportunity for comment to be made. should mean that there would be a continuation of traffic
movements, but this should be not be above current levels.
On waste scenarios and waste management provision (Key Matter 3 Officer Comment
and SSP paragraph 5.0)
The Development Control Committee and the Environment Waste and
supported retaining flexibility to allow pursuit of either a maximum Noted, this is the suggested Preferred Option
recycling / recovery strategy, or a recycling / recovery facility with
energy from waste
The Development Control Committee expressed grave concern about the Noted. We need to make sure we have marshalled our
expectation that the Authority, because it had the landfill capacity, should arguments prior to the Government’s announcement (through
receive waste from London, and supported a robust response to the the Regional Spatial Strategy), and to ensure that the East of
Government if initial apportionment levels were confirmed in the proposed England Regional Assembly are in no doubt about the view of
modifications to the East of England Plan. the County Council.
The EWB SDG shared the above concerns, and concluded that
representations should be made challenging the practicality / sustainability
of this proposals. A robust response needed to be made in respect to the
differing statistical forecasts that have been produced, and strong
safeguards are required in terms of the type of waste to be received i.e.
There was a general view that the Mayor of London should be pressured
to do more address London’s waste problem i.e. through the creation of a
comprehensive plan rather than expecting surrounding areas to deal with
Looking at potential uses for preferred waste recycling and recovery Officer Comment
sites (SSP paragraph 5.9), the Development Control Committee
On Mixed Waste Stream Recycling Facilities
While asking Cabinet to note Councillor Turner’s concern that the relevant Noted. Relevant Parish Councils and all other stakeholders will
parish councils be consulted about the site South of Newmarket Road, be consulted.
Cambridge, the Development Control Committee was otherwise content
with the proposed allocations.
This was supported by the SDG.
On Single Stream Recycling Facilities
While asking Cabinet to note Councillor J Reynolds’s concern about Concerns are noted. The new planning system poses a
ensuring proper provision for waste management in new developments, challenge in this respect as the development of the new
the Development Control Committee was otherwise content with the communities is progressing through the District / City LDF
proposed allocations. process, which is unable to reflect mineral and waste
allocations until the Waste LDF is adopted. However, Officers
are already working closely with the relevant Topic Groups to
ensure that modern waste management requirements are
known. It anticipated that the Master Planning stage would be
crucial in bringing together the detailed planning of new
communities, including the provision of essential community
uses such as waste management.
On In Vessel Composting Facilities
The DC Committee and the SDG supported the idea of in-vessel Noted.
composting over other forms such as open windrow composting.
On Inert Waste Recycling Facilities
The DC Committee and SDG accepted the approach (to use material to Noted.
assist quarry restoration) and had no comment for Cabinet.
On Energy from Waste Facilities
The Development Control Committee recommended that the Plan Agreed. The Plan encourages waste minimisation, and
incorporate the following points: assumptions are made in this respect. It is important that the
while Energy from Waste was to be encouraged if the technology was Waste Hierarchy is adhered to as suggested.
adequate, it should not be viewed as an alternative to waste reduction;
the focus should be on achieving first waste reduction, then waste
recycling, then Energy from Waste
consideration should be given incorporating small waste heat power Noted. The application of combined heat and power is matter
plants (such as those used in Denmark) into new settlements, e.g. for District / City Councils to consider in relation to new
Northstowe. settlements. Whilst the Plan has not proposed small heat and
power plants fuelled by refuse derived fuel at the new
The additions were supported by the SDG. settlement, the Plan is clear than innovation and new
technology should not be stifled, and that strategic
development areas are suitable locations for waste
management development which might include opportunities
to use refuse derived fuels to reduce fossil fuel use.
On Specialist Facilities (dealing with hazardous waste)
The Committee noted the possible inconsistency of proposing to rely on Noted and agreed, this site is immediately adjacent the Plan
King’s Cliff in Northamptonshire for the landfilling of general hazardous area. Facilities such as King’s Cliff that dispose of hazardous
waste while being reluctant to accept London waste; it suggested that the waste are likely by their nature to serve a much wider area.
proximity of the site to the County boundary and the exceptional nature of This facility is known to receive waste from a significant
the King’s Cliff proposal be emphasised. distance.
The above comments were supported by the SDG. Noted.
The SDG supported the on-site replacement of the existing energy to
waste plant, and suggested that Addenbrookes should be asked to
consider pyrolysis technology combined with heat and power.
On Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs)
In relation to specific sites and areas, the Development Committee’s views The approach of the Development Control Committee would
were: be problematic for the following reasons:
a. the evaluation exercise was the subject of careful
Former Bayer Crop Science, Hauxton – because of concerns in consideration and clearly identified the Bayer Site as the best
relation to the Bayer site, including Green Belt, traffic, impact on option
neighbouring development proposals and the greater proximity of b. the evaluation took into account the location of the Bayer
alternative sites to Cambridge, no site specific proposal should be Site in the Green Belt, the need for remediation of
‘preferred’ in relation to the location of an HWRC in the Cambridge contaminated land, and its location away from the urban area
Southern Fringe. Instead, views should be invited on an Area of of Cambridge
Search, to include the Bayer Crop Science (West) Hauxton site, Glebe c. the Bayer site has a number of significant advantages:
Farm Trumpington, Land near the M11, and the Cambridge Southern - avoids land planned for housing
Fringe as a whole. - separated from residential areas
- boundaries formed by screen banking, trees and vegetation
- A10 is not as major concern (subject to improvements)
- site already has a waste management use
- reasonably well located in relation to Cambridge and
villages immediately to the South
d. advice from the Government Office is that any Plan should
identify a Preferred Option. There is a danger that if this is not
done the Plan could be found to be procedurally unsound.
The SDG did not support the approach suggested by the Development
Control Committee and supported the Bayer Crop Science (West)
Hauxton site as the preferred option. This was based on the site analysis
that had taken place and concern that the Plan should not be held up by
The Development Control Committee made the following points on other
Cambridge Northern Fringe – noting that this was an area of search for Accepted that the Plan needs to be amended to pick up the
an HWRC which had inadvertently been omitted from the table in the omission, and a wider area of search can be identified to
Committee report, and that there were to be extensive areas of new include Cowley Road Park and Ride site.
housing north of the City, the Committee suggested that consideration
be giving to extending the area of search to include the Cowley Road
Park and Ride site, as relocation of the Park and Ride had already
been proposed. This approach was also supported by the SDG.
Eastern Cambridgeshire – the site at Station Road, Fordham, already a
The site would be suitable for an HWRC. However, it has not
preferred site for other potential waste uses, should also be a preferred
so far been identified for this use.
site for an HWRC. This is because of a lack of HWRCs in the east of
the County, which will be exacerbated by the relocation of the Grunty
Fen site to west of Ely. The SDG noted that this site was expected to
completely close by 2010.
Witchford Way, Witchford – while noting Councillor Hunt’s concerns, Noted. Councillor Hunt raised issues in respect to the nature of
the Committee agreed that this site was better than Grunty Fen. This any facility and its design. It was confirmed that the site is
was supported by the SDG. preferred for an HWRC only, and that any facility would have
to comply with the Council’s guidance i.e. be a covered facility,
and of a high quality in terms of design and operation.
In general, the Committee welcomed the prospect of evening and bank Noted.
holiday opening hours for HWRCs.
Members of the SDG raised the on going issue of the need to re-site the Noted.
recycling facility currently situated in the middle of St Neots
The SDG raised the issue of a need for a potential need for a facility to Further research would be undertaken and the issue could be
serve the Chatteris/Ramsey area. included in the consultation.
On New Technology
The DC Committee accepted the approach and had no comment for Noted.
Cabinet. The approach was supported by the SDG.
On the relocation of Milton Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) Officer Comment
(SSP paragraph 4.0)
The DC Committee took the view that, while there were significant Noted, clarification of potential proposals for the site is being
concerns about the Honey Hill site north of the A14, no other site would pursued with Anglian Water.
provide a better solution if land on Cambridge Northern Fringe was to be
released for redevelopment. However, the Committee urged that officers
work with Anglia Water to encourage the publication of details of the
potential design and layout of the site to enable all parties to make an
informed judgement on the proposed allocation. The SDG supported the
Preferred Option, recognising that other two sites did not provide sufficient
land, and advice received from the Government Office that Preferred
Options should be identified.
Subject to the comments made above, the Committee and SDG Noted.
approved the draft Preferred Options Plan and commended it to