News  »  Questions for Anglian Water at today's PC meeting

Representatives of Anglian Water will be attending this evening's meeting of the Parish Council to answer questions on the relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Plant. These questions will include:

Q4) Is it correct you have turned down our request for further time to respond to this consultation?

Q5) Will the tallest structures be the anaerobic digestion tanks with a maximum height of 26m above ground level (Stage 3 Report section 2.3.83) or a structure with a height of 16m which was described at the Quy Parish Council Meeting? How many such structures do you expect there to be?

Q6) Can you explain why the Fen Ditton and Baitsbite designated Conservation Areas are not in the list in paragraph 2.2.1 of Appendix C to the Fine Screening Report? Also, Table 17 in Appendix B omits the Marleigh playing fields that will be adjacent to High Ditch Road?

Q7) Do you agree that Table 18 statement that ‘No ProWs cross, or are adjacent to, the site’ contradicts the fact that Low Fen Drove byway is part of its perimeter?

 Q8) Can you explain why you evaluate the Green Belt equally around the 3 sites as RED but only give a score of AMBER at Site 3 under ‘Landscape and Visual Amenity’ when there are many references to Fen Ditton, Teversham, and High Ditch Rd in the 2002 Study supporting the 2018 Local Development Framework? Do you recognize that for example the Vision Statement in section 7.5 of that Study mirrors the point that many people enjoy easy access (with scope for improvement) to the area of Honey Hill, Quy Fen and the Wicken Fen Vision area in general so they can appreciate the setting of special character of East Cambridge?

Q9) Can you explain why groundwater impacts are classed as uniformly AMBER across all three sites but Site 3 is in a Zone classed as RED on the Government’s MAGIC website?

Q10) Do you agree that Quy Roundabout – High Ditch Road route and the A14-Horningsea Road junction are unsuitable for access to Site 3 and should be ruled out?  At the Quy PC meeting you said that the traffic management would be sorted out later but do you agree that the use of these routes and junctions, even if modified for safety reasons, would inevitably increase delays for road and cycleway users?

Q11) Are you aware that High Ditch Rd is on the line of the ancient and historic Fleam Dyke and is therefore unsuitable for HGVs or for reconstruction to make it suitable?  There have been recent archaeological discoveries at Marleigh that may underpin the importance of Fleam Dyke even further.

Q12) Do you agree the above might affect the RAG scores of Site 3 and that you will correct the scores now as these errors and points are brought to your attention?

Q13) please confirm that the choice of 400 m buffer zone around a works only applies to residential housing and not to offices or industrial uses etc.

Q14) Please confirm if the elevation of the Honey Hill site is above that of your Milton Works.

Q15) Taking on board the complex nature of the storm water management and treatment processes you describe in the documents, please describe how you will manage emergencies outside the design performance. We are particularly concerned whether or not you would have overflow points in the system upstream of any relocated works. Can you confirm that if in the event of an emergency, such as for example, rainfall exceeding your design capacity, power failures, failures in the discharge pipelines etc etc. there will be absolutely no requirement to spill discharges onto land or drains near a relocated works especially if it is at a higher elevation than Milton?

Q16) How will you interpret and report the number of answers you get to the questions in your survey and to points raised by different means?

The meeting will be happening online, by Zoom, and is open to the public. The meeting ID is 998 4466 2316; please email the Parish Clerk for the password if you wish to attend.

Previous questions, together with Anglian Water's responses have been as follows:

Q1) Section 2.2.49 of the CWWTPR-Stage-3-Fine-Screening-Report.pdf states that the spread of the 76 HGV loads (in Table 2.7) throughout the day is not currently know. What is the number of hours of the day over which you expect that most or all of these operational movements will normally take place? 

Q2) What will be the normal hours of the day over which you expect the majority of non HGV traffic to travel to and from the site?

Although the site will be open for sludge imports 24 hours a day, and vehicles may be moving at any time, there will be far fewer sludge movements overnight when there are fewer drivers on duty. Normal hours of the day for traffic movements will be between 7am and 6pm, including for septic waste deliveries, but with the exception of emergency tankers which may require access at any time. However, this would only occur during rare instances, for example in the event of a power cut or pumping station with failed pumps.

Q3) What lighting will you have operating on site? Will it be the same throughout periods of darkness?

A detailed lighting scheme for the site will be developed and designed as the project moves forward. This will include an assessment of any potential amenity or ecological impacts which may arise in order that we can ensure these are minimised and mitigated as far as possible. Further details will become available as this work is undertaken and we will be able to share these proposals with you in due course. At this stage it is anticipated that a number of different forms of lighting will be needed on the site, with each type serving a different purpose and having different hours of use. There will need to be some lighting of the internal roads within the site, most likely in the form of traditional lighting columns which we would expect to leave on overnight (as with normal street lighting). What we would call ‘task lighting’ will be needed for all maintainable pieces of the plant in order to allow critical maintenance activities to take place. This is typically in the form of a lighting bulkhead operated by a passive infrared sensor (PIR) system and it would only operate as required which is likely to be infrequently. Some discrete parts of the site/equipment will require emergency lighting for health and safety purposes in accordance with the fire regulations which we need to adhere to. This lighting tends, however, to be primarily internal or to located close to emergency exists. We would expect the level of illumination to be low. Finally, we will be considering and assessing the potential for lighting to the tallest structures within the site as part of our design process and from the perspective of needing to ensure protection for aerial traffic during low light periods depending on the outcome of the site selection and the requirements of the Aviation Authority.

Temporary lighting will also will be necessary during the construction phase. We would anticipate that this will take the form of task lighting which will only be used during periods of low light