The environmental health team at Cambridge City Council was asked by the authority’s own planning department to take “a more lenient stance on the very serious contamination issues” surrounding a major new science park on a former landfill site, it has been revealed.
Emails revealed under the Freedom of Information Act show the team felt in July that it was “inappropriate” and would “lead to both the pollution of controlled waters and pose serious risks to human health”.
Meanwhile, the Environment Agency (EA) warned the developer of the new science park and urban country park on land south of Coldhams Lane that it will face “serious and potentially insurmountable” challenges when managing the pollution risks.
However, the development was approved in September with a number of conditions which, the council says, satisfied the planning service that the concerns raised “could be fully addressed”.
The comments will leave residents concerned about the pollution of the chalk aquifer, which is the source of the city’s drinking water.
Cherry Hinton resident Salim Seedat said in a letter to the Cambridge Independent in August: “The EA believes the developer will face major technical problems and that the proposed field trials – to decide on a suitable method for building foundations and how to clean up the groundwater – at the site could themselves pollute water sources.”
The plans for seven new office and laboratory buildings, of more than 1,000,000 sq ft, were put forward by BGO Newton Propco Limited and Mission Street. The EA – and the city council’s environmental health team – maintained a holding objection to the plans until just weeks before the decision.
In a letter to the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning – the combined planning service for Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council – the EA said it would be “unreasonable and inappropriate” for it to maintain its objection.
It said this was despite it having “technical concerns” over whether the proposed scheme can be delivered “in respect of the associated pollution risks”.
The letter explains: “We consider that the developer will encounter serious and potentially insurmountable technical challenges to delivery of the proposed scheme and to the management of the associated pollution risks to controlled waters.”
The EA said the site is “already causing pollution of controlled waters” and that it has not been demonstrated that there is a “viable remediation strategy to adequately manage this pollution”.
“The construction methods that are proposed on the site pose a pollution risk to controlled waters. We consider it has not been demonstrated that these risks can be adequately managed,” the EA continued.
It also says it cannot guarantee that consents, environmental permits and abstraction licences would be granted in the future.
Emails released as part of the FOI show that the EA felt there was “not much confidence” that the proposed scheme would be successful or that it was “a suitable and viable solution for such a complex site”.
In an email to the Environment Agency from the Greater Cambridge Planning Service in May, submitted before the EA removed its holding objection, it states: “The site is allocated in the adopted Local Plan and in that context is a priority site for the council to see delivered.
“In a planning sense, it would deliver a new country park with public access to the lakes on parcel C, and help meet the significant demand arising for lab space within the Cambridge R&D context.
“Whilst it is not my intention to comment on the technical feedback the EA has provided, I would like to try to agree between the applicants, the EA and LPA planning officers, how we can collectively progress matters, in a way that ensures that you receive the further technical information required, whilst maintaining a suitable level of control through the planning process.”
The email goes on to say that the developer is planning to undertake trials in relation to the EA’s concerns around foundation and ground stabilisation, which would “in themselves constitute development requiring planning permission”.
The planning service tells the EA that the “normal way” of dealing with a complex site like this was to grant permission and securing the required technical detail through appropriate and “strongly worded pre-commencement and operational development conditions”.
“I recognise that you have stated in your consultation response that there is insufficient detail submitted to enable you to recommend appropriate conditions, but if that information can only be provided from development and through some form of permission and the EA maintains its objection to the application, the developer is being placed in a position where they could never satisfy the EA’s concerns, certainly not for any form of development that would disturb the landfill,” the email says.
It adds: “I do understand the EA’s precautionary approach to this site, however I am keen to find a way for all parties to keep moving forward, particularly considering the importance of delivering this long allocated site and the wider benefits that will be secured for the city.”
The council’s own environment health team then stated in an email in July seen by the Cambridge Independent: “We feel that Greater Cambridge Shared Planning are asking us to take a more lenient stance on the very serious contamination issues posed by the application in its current state – we feel that this is inappropriate at this time and will lead to both the pollution of controlled waters and pose serious risks to human health.”
However, this team also removed its holding objection following the decision by the EA to do so.
The FOI, which was obtained by Cambridge Friends of the Earth, also reveals that lawyers for the developer warned that it would take the application to appeal for non-determination should it be held up any longer.
In the letter, the EA said: “We consider it has not been demonstrated that there is a viable groundwater remediation strategy for this site. It appears that a ‘try-it-and-see’ approach with no guarantee of ultimate success is envisaged.”
A spokesperson for Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service said: “As the land is contaminated, there has been a great deal of engagement between the planning service, the applicant, the Environment Agency and the council’s environmental health (EH) team to seek to reconcile the concerns raised. Having worked together with EA and EH officers, the shared planning service was satisfied that the concerns raised could be fully addressed by the conditions proposed and agreed at a planning committee in September. These conditions are binding.”
A spokesperson for the council’s environmental health team said: “As with any planning application, we are a statutory consultee. We clearly had concerns in the summer about the application, due to contamination and the potential impact on people and the environment.
“But since raising these concerns in the summer, we have worked together with the Environment Agency, the applicant and the shared planning service, and were supportive of the planning conditions agreed at committee.”
The developers say their plans aim to “create a globally significant science destination that fully integrates with its neighbourhood and transforms Cambridge lives”.
The new science district will open up Burnside Lakes, which are currently closed to the public.
Dishone Lloyd, 16, from Essex, died at the lakes in August after getting into difficulty in the water.
More than 100 objections were formally lodged against the developers’ plans, with many sharing fears about potential health impacts of building on top of an old landfill.
One objector said: “The land on which it has been proposed to build was a landfill in the past and an unknown amount of toxic pollutants may be still held under the surface.
“Any disturbance to the area could cause these to surface and cause long-term damage to the families of Cherry Hinton, as well as to local wildlife and plants.”
However, planning officers said they believed the measures proposed by the developer and the planning conditions proposed would ensure it was safe.
When asked why the EA had removed its objection, a spokesperson said: “We have raised concerns about this complex site and have sought additional information from those involved. Before the development begins, the Environment Agency will work with the local planning authority to ensure that detailed conditions relating to water quality monitoring and site remediation works are undertaken.”
A spokesperson for Mission Street added: “We have been working collaboratively with the Environment Agency, technical specialists, and other statutory consultees for over three years, and will continue to work with them to deliver a scheme that will bring numerous benefits to the local community, including through remediation unlocked by this project.”
The Labour government voiced support for kickstarting Cambridge growth.
In a letter to local leaders in September, housing minister Matthew Pennycook said: “Greater Cambridge has a vital role to play in this government’s mission to kickstart economic growth and we are determined to maximise the potential contribution it could make to the UK economy by helping to remove barriers to the delivery of vital housing, infrastructure, and laboratory space.”
Ongoing concerns over water scarcity from new housing have also been brushed aside recently, when 1,000 new homes at Darwin Green – to which local authorities had objected – were approved by a planning inspector, and rubber-stamped by the government.
It was argued that a new water resources management plan agreed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would be in place prior to development to address the water supply concerns.
But that decision dismayed city councillor Martin Smart (Lab, King’s Hedges), who told councillors: “We have a limited resource and it is running out, so it seems to me ultimately we are stuffed.”
This post was originally published on here
