The decision to build a science park on a former landfill site in Cherry Hinton, Cambridge, highlights growing concerns about environmental oversight in urban development. Despite strong objections from both the Environment Agency and the council’s Environmental Health department, the project has been approved, leaving many to question the balance between economic growth and public safety. This case raises serious questions about the planning process and the potential risks of developing on contaminated land.
It was at a recent meeting of the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning committee that planning permission was granted – by a unanimous decision (which included a vote in favour by a Green Councillor) – to build the science park. You might think that objections from the Environment Agency (EA) and Environmental Health (EH) departments would have made the applications a non-starter.
This is especially so given the ‘historic’ nature of the landfill. It was closed in the 1980s and no-one knows what’s actually down there as very few records were kept. However, you only have to look at industries that have carried out business in Cambridge since the 1950s to get some idea of what it might contain. Very likely, it includes electronics, metal finishing and waste from both university research labs and the airport.
Early objections and loose plans
Initially, both the EA and the council’s EH department provided ‘Holding Objections’ to the application for the development. This was because during the correspondence between the developer’s consultants (Ramboll) and these bodies it became clear that no detailed plans had been drawn up. All they provided was a list of options for how they’d like to develop the land, with no concrete explanations as to how they intended to proceed. They did acknowledge that testing would be required, which would involve test-piling.
The EA’s concern is illustrated by this paragraph in their detailed objection:
“There is currently insufficient information and inadequate assessment of potential impacts (including odour and noise) from the detailed proposals of this hybrid application to allow an informed decision to be reached, and it has not been demonstrated that significant or any other adverse impacts can be avoided or reduced and minimised to an acceptable level. These are fundamental material considerations that should be addressed prior to determination and should not be conditioned.”
Statutory consultees and limited power
Did that mean the developer needed to go away and come up with more detailed plans and present them to the Environment Agency and Environmental Health department for further consideration? Well, not exactly…
Both the EA and EH are only ‘Statutory Consultees’. That is, they cannot veto a development, regardless of how impractical or potentially risky to people or the environment it is. All they can do is offer advice. In this case that advice could easily be bypassed with the help of a good team of lawyers. While the EA and EH may have good grounds to oppose the development, they are effectively impotent to prevent it.
Developer influence and legal threats
Inevitably, the developer pushed back on the advice, arguing that permission must be granted because the contamination issues at the site could be dealt with via conditions attached to any planning permission granted. This point flies in the face of the EA’s objection, as quoted above, that the determination “should not be conditioned”.
The developer made it clear that if Greater Cambridge Shared Planning (GCSP) did not grant permission, then they would appeal. They knew GCSP wouldn’t have a strong case if their only objection was based solely on the Environment Agency’s objection. This was underscored by the advice from GCSP’s legal team who were unable to counter any of the points raised by the developer’s lawyers.
Objections withdrawn and public concerns
An officer at GCSP then directly contacted managers at both the EA and EH to inform them that if they maintained their objections, a costly appeal would follow. This led to both organisations withdrawing their objections shortly before the planning committee met to decide on the application.
It’s unclear what was said to the councillors that led them to vote unanimously in favour of the application in the face of not only both the EA and EH’s objections, but additional objections from bodies such as Natural England, the Wildlife Trust, Friends of Cherry Hinton Brook, Cambridge Friends of the Earth, as well as the objections of 100 local residents.
It seems likely that the threat of a costly appeal along with the surprising inclusion of the land in the Local Plan, that effectively granted a presumption in favour of development.
Uncertain safeguards and lasting questions
None of these manoeuvrings change the likely toxic content of the landfill site lying under the proposed development. Nor does it mitigate the risk of contamination from it escaping into nearby watercourses or the wider environment as the site is developed. The only protection left is the “conditions” applied to the granting of planning permission.
This raises a number of questions. Will the developer attempt to negotiate for their removal if they consider them too onerous? Who will decide on the conditions? Will the EA and EH be consulted and, more importantly, listened to? Is this why the developer pressed for the granting of permission with conditions, as they knew they could get them watered down following discussions with non-elected officers? Will a cash-starved Environment Agency or Environmental Health department be able to adequately monitor the development to ensure all conditions are being met?
The future of planning and accountability
What is the point of having a democratically elected Planning Committee, or bodies such as the Environment Agency and the council’s Environmental Health department if their expertise can be overridden by the mere threat of legal action? Perhaps it would be simpler if they just performed a calculation of the risk of being subjected to an expensive appeal by a deep-pocketed developer in any given planning case and make their decision accordingly. Maybe this is already happening. Anyone who’s applied for planning permission to extend their house will tell you permission is far from a foregone conclusion.
The approval of this development sets a worrying precedent for how environmental and public health concerns can be bypassed in the face of legal threats from developers. The conditions attached to the planning permission may offer some safeguards, but the green lighting of a complex and controversial development such as this raises doubts about the ability of underfunded agencies to enforce them.
As Cambridge continues to expand, the question of how to balance growth with environmental responsibility becomes ever more urgent. This development may serve as a warning of the hidden dangers lying just beneath the surface.
