Cambridge sewage relocation works approved for Honey Hill
Plans to relocate a sewage treatment works to make way for new homes have been approved.Anglian Water has permission to replace its current Cambridge facility, near Milton, with a new plant on land known as Honey Hill, close to Horningsea.The government approved the new Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant, despite the examining authority recommending that consent should be withheld. A spokesperson from the planning inspectorate said communities would be involved in examining projects that may affect them.
The water company submitted the plans in April 2023 after it was asked by the government to consider relocation.Land at the former plant site would be redeveloped as part of the North East Cambridge development, which is proposed to include around 8,000 new homes and new commercial buildings, said the Local Democracy Reporting Service.The government committed £277m to build the new sewage works and the overall cost was estimated at £400m.
Plans for the new sewage works have been met with backlash from people in the area.During a six-month examination process objections questioned why green belt land should be "sacrificed" to build the new sewage works.The examining authority which looked at the application recommended a Development Consent Order should not be granted.Examiners argued they did not think the case for the principle of the development had been "adequately justified in either infrastructure or wider policy terms".Steve Reed, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, disagreed.In a letter, he said the proposed development had been justified."The secretary of state considers that the relocation of the existing waste water treatment plant will unlock a long-held ambition to redevelop North East Cambridge and enable the delivery of thousands of new homes and new jobs in a highly sustainable location where development has been frustrated for decades by the presence of the existing waste water treatment plant," he said."Approval of development consent is consistent with the government's objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and consistent with the achievement of sustainable development."
Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
14 hours ago
- The Guardian
Bidders demand Thames Water granted immunity over environmental crimes
Lenders vying to take over Thames Water have demanded that the struggling company and its management be granted immunity from prosecution for serious environmental crimes as a condition of acquiring it, the Guardian can reveal. Creditors want the environment secretary, Steve Reed, to grant the water company extraordinary clemency from a series of strict rules covering everything from sewage spills to failure to upgrade its water treatment works. The demands, if successful, would render the Environment Agency (EA) largely powerless to take enforcement action against Britain's biggest water company for some of the most serious criminal breaches of its licences and permits. Thames Water has been a serial offender in recent years, paying tens of millions of pounds in fines and penalties, with multiple convictions for dumping raw sewage into rivers and streams and dozens more investigations under way. The fate of the heavily indebted utility was thrown into further doubt this week when the US private equity firm KKR quit an auction to buy it, citing concerns about politicisation and the poor state of its assets. That has left a disparate band of about 100 bondholders, who have collectively lent the company about £13bn, as the sole bidder. If the creditors' bid fails, Thames Water is likely to fall into state ownership via the special administration regime – a fate the Treasury is desperate to avoid. Sources described the creditors' list of demands as a 'ransom note' that underlined their powerful negotiating position as the 'last show in town'. Creditors argue that failure to secure leniency from fines and enforcement will mean Thames Water is caught in a 'doom loop' that prevents it from recovering and injecting enough money into its tired network. The company, which has 16 million customers in the London and Thames Valley regions and 8,000 employees, is labouring under about £20bn of debt and is running out of cash. The requests formed part of the creditors' turnaround plan that was put to the water regulator, Ofwat, in recent days. Among the proposals were that the EA stops enforcing personal liability for managers at Thames Water and does not pursue enforcement over the company's failure to deliver a huge number of infrastructure upgrades, known as the water industry national environment programme (Winep). The Guardian revealed in December that Thames Water intentionally diverted millions of pounds pledged for Winep environmental clean-ups towards bonuses and dividends, sparking an Ofwat investigation. Customers have already paid for those projects via their bills. Thames Water failed to deliver more than 100 of 812 Winep schemes it was due to between 2020 and 2025. Other creditor requests include not prosecuting Thames Water for sewage spills on dry days or for 'flow to full treatment' licence breaches – where the EA and Ofwat police how much wastewater its plants can treat at any time. They also want Thames Water to be exempt from prosecution for breaches of the industrial emissions directive, which governs pollution into rivers, streams, land and the atmosphere. To achieve these requests, the creditors want Reed to give a strategic decision statement ordering the EA to deprioritise enforcement. The Guardian revealed in March that Thames Water was demanding leniency for fines and penalties in order to attract bidders and stop cash they might inject from leaking out of the business. However, the extent of the creditor demands, and request for near-blanket immunity for serious environmental crimes, has surprised water industry insiders, who warned it could spark legal challenges from rivals or lead to more requests for special treatment. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Last month Ofwat fined the company£123m over sewage and dividend breaches. The regulator said its investigation had uncovered failings around Thames's handling of sewage and wastewater, which amounted to a 'significant breach' of its legal obligations. The EA is still pursuing parallel investigations into Thames Water over alleged failure to comply with environmental permits, and has powers to prosecute the company. Creditors are expected to write down a significant proportion of their debt in return for taking over the company. Time is running out to find a solution to keep it afloat as it burns through £3bn of high-interest rescue loans. A spokesperson for the creditors declined to comment on commercial discussions but confirmed their plan required 'regulatory support'. 'The creditors' proposal will fix the fundamentals, protect public health and prioritise improved customer and environmental outcomes,' they said. 'In addition to a detailed operational plan and billions in fresh investment proposed by the creditors, Thames Water requires a fundamental reset and regulatory support so that asset health and performance can be restored to the levels that customers and the environment deserve. 'The creditors are committed to working with the government and regulators to achieve that outcome as quickly as possible and expect Thames Water to be held to account to deliver a realistic but ambitious trajectory for the company's return to compliance.' A government spokesperson said: 'The company is stable and government is carefully monitoring the situation. We expect the company to continue to meet its obligations to both customers and the environment.' An Ofwat spokesperson said: 'Our focus is on ensuring that the company takes the right steps to deliver a turnaround in its operational performance and strengthen its financial resilience to the benefit of customers. We are assessing whether the [creditors'] plans are realistic, deliverable and will bring substantial benefits for customers and the environment.' Thames Water said: 'In order to be investable, we and prospective investors would need to engage in discussions with our regulators.'
Business News Wales
a day ago
- Business News Wales
Combinable Crops Review Targets Fairer Returns for Farmers
Combinable Crops Review Targets Fairer Returns for Farmers A new UK Government review aims to tackle unfair practices in the combinable crops supply chain. Combinable crops, such as cereals (like wheat and barley), oilseeds, and pulses, are harvested using a combine harvester. They provide essential ingredients for food, animal feed and fuel. Environment Secretary Steve Reed said: 'British growers work incredibly hard to produce world-class food, and deserve fair, transparent contracts that reflect that. 'This review is a major step forward in giving arable farmers a stronger voice, better protection and fairer returns for the food they produce. 'We're proud of the vital work farmers undertake every day to feed our nation, which is why we're investing £5 billion – the largest ever budget for sustainable farming.' The UK Government has appointed former NFU president Baroness Minette Batters to lead reforms. It says that it will collaborate with devolved governments in a bid to develop a fairer, more transparent supply chain. A formal public consultation will be launched, giving farmers and other stakeholders the chance to share their experiences.
The Independent
2 days ago
- The Independent
Will the ban on water industry bonuses get flushed away?
'The era of profiting from pollution ends today,' declared environment secretary Steve Reed, taking aim at our deeply dysfunctional water industry. Big talk – and it was backed up with a ban on bonuses for 10 top bosses as a result of the scandalous level of sewage pollution consumers have had to put up with. Over the last 10 years, execs at the nine biggest water companies have had their wallets fattened by a combined £112m for running regional monopolies – badly. In just the last year, they've pocketed nearly £8m. No wonder people are cross. If you want an example of why monopolies are a thoroughly bad thing, you've got it here. If you want a case study of why bosses' bonuses make people blow a gasket, you've also got it here. The nearly 2,500 'sewage events' recorded over the 12 months can in part be traced to profoundly misaligned incentives. And also, it should be said, to Ofwat's continued failure to properly regulate the sector. If these companies received effective oversight, the current mess would not have been allowed to happen. But back to the government's order, which will hit executives at the stricken Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, Anglian Water, Wessex Water, United Utilities, and Southern Water where it hurts: in the pocket. 'While it is for water companies to set their own remuneration, new standards published by Ofwat that come into force today mean bonuses will not be permitted to be handed out in specific cases when a water company fails to meet core environmental standards,' the government said. Future bans will be imposed if a water boss 'presides over serious pollution offences, fails to meet basic financial resilience standards (e.g. meet minimum credit rating requirements), fails to meet core consumer standards (e.g. failure to operate and maintain sewage networks, is convicted of a criminal offence'. This will be a popular move from a government that needs to find a few winners. However – and you can call me a cynic if you want – there is a potential problem here. Remember the EU's bankers bonus cap, limiting payments to 100 per cent of salary, or twice that with shareholder approval? The net result of that rule, since jettisoned by the UK, was that affected institutions sharply increased the base salaries of their leading rainmakers. Some of them actually found they were really quite keen on having (much) larger pots of guaranteed money coming to them. Executive pay is a multi-headed hydra. Cut off one of those heads – the bonus, in this case – and the others (basic pay, benefits, pensions) typically get bigger. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some of the water companies attempting to push through big increases in basic pay for their execs, or more likely still, quietly increasing benefits and especially pension contributions. This will merit close attention. Water bosses being handed fat pay rises will, of course, go down like a cup of cold sewage and generate an overflowing storm drain of controversy. But, given the tin ear the water industry has turned to its critics in the past, would anyone be all that surprised if one or two of these companies tried this? I wouldn't. You can, nonetheless, file the bonus ban under 'easy win' for Mr Reed, who was out tub thumping on TV on the back of the announcement. He puffed out his chest, made himself look big and tough, and talked about promises being delivered. It might be me, but isn't it just a little bit early for him to be saying that? Yes, he's had a good start on this one. I'm not denying that. But turning the water industry into something that works for both consumers and investors is a much tougher nut to crack. Reed touted a £104bn pot of private investment – 'the largest ever since privatisation' – which, we are told, will be ring-fenced 'to cut sewage discharges by nearly half over the next five years', as opposed to being used for 'shareholder payouts'. Things that make you go hmm. The money is certainly welcome. It is much needed. But what you have to remember is that private investors are not charities. They don't pump money into companies without the prospect of a return. They will require payouts at some point otherwise the money will dry up quicker than the water pouring out of a leaky Thames Water pipe on a hot summer's day. The other thing to remember, with the water industry being in such a godawful mess, is that it's going to take some smart people to fix it. Preferably new people, untainted by previous scandal. These people tend to demand very high salaries. If their incentives are properly aligned with the delivery of the services these companies are supposed to provide, it ought to be possible to deliver something that hasn't happened to date: an industry that works for all its stakeholders. But Mr Reed, and a beefed up Ofwat, still have work to do on that front.
