A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme

The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.

A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme

Received 10 June 2021
From Shakespeare Martineau on behalf of South Staffordshire Water plc

Representation

This registration is submitted on behalf of South Staffs Water plc (“SSW”), a water undertaker appointed under the Water Act 1989, with statutory duties to carry out water supply functions throughout its appointed area, including the area where the works are proposed to be carried out under the development consent order, if confirmed. SSW operates assets that are located in close proximity to the proposed works. Whilst SSW does not object in principle to the Scheme it reserves its ability to object if there is a risk to its assets or operations. The scheme affects major trunk mains serving thousands of people in the local populations in the West of Cambridge. All of the apparatus is strategic with no alternative means of serving the local areas if there is a loss of supply due to the scheme. It is essential that these assets remain in continuous operation in order to ensure the provision of water supplies to household and non-household customers. Initial discussions have been held with the applicant and initial designs provided but if the Scheme changes, further changes to the proposed diversions may be required. In addition any works required to be carried out to SSW’s assets must be planned and implemented to avoid the risk of supply interruption or damage to the integrity of the water network. Further, the current drafting of the protective provisions of the draft Development Consent Order ("DCO") are not satisfactory to SSW and amongst other points of concern they impose a requirement on SSW to remove redundant apparatus which SSW would normally cap and abandon. To remove such apparatus would impose significant costs on SSW. Removal of the redundant apparatus is only one of several issues that SSW have with the protective provisions. SSW therefore objects to the draft DCO unless and until such time as an approved programme and methodology of works can be agreed. In addition, SSW’s objection will remain unless SSW’s concerns with the protective provisions are addressed to their satisfaction, whether by amends to them or a supplemental agreement is reached.