Whittlesey Saxon Pit Expansion U-Turn Demanded in 2026

Key Points

• Cambridgeshire County Council’s planning committee is scheduled to consider the expansion of incinerator bottom ash (IBA) operations at Saxon Pit, Whittlesey, on Wednesday, 4 March 2026, at 10.00am at New Shire Hall, Alconbury.
• Council officers recommend approval of the application by Johnsons Aggregate & Recycling Ltd to nearly double annual throughput from 250,000 tonnes to 614,000 tonnes of construction and demolition (C&D) waste and IBA, subject to 30 conditions.
• Residents, councillors, and campaigners, including the Saxongate Residents Group, are calling for a U-turn or postponement due to unresolved safety, environmental, health, drainage, and regulatory issues.
• Confirmed breach of Condition 25: IBA stored outside approved Waste Reception Area, with damaged concrete pad (twice in 12 months) and standing water observed.
• Cllr Chris Boden, Whittlesey county councillor and Fenland District Council leader, warns approval would be “premature and irresponsible” without drainage consents from Middle Level Commissioners.
• Middle Level Commissioners request deferral or refusal pending drainage and water discharge resolution.
• Environment Agency (EA) disclosures via FOI/EIR reveal “quite shocking” heavy metals in discharges; internal EA review ongoing.
• Cambridgeshire Director of Public Health recommends refusal; Peterborough City Council highways authority also objects.
• Proposed changes include outdoor crushing/screening, increased HGV movements from 92 to 332 per day, higher stockpiles, raising noise, dust, traffic, pollution, flood, and health concerns.
• Dr Rollinson’s 43-page technical critique (November 2025) questions contaminant modelling, sampling, and cumulative risks; published late on council portal.​
• Residents report dust requiring vehicle/window washing; free 52-seat coach arranged for 4 March meeting.
• Site history: Former Saxon Brickworks (Forterra), now operated by Johnson Aggregates Recycling Limited (previously East Midlands Waste Management Ltd); environmental permit since 2012.
• Public health risk assessment by council with UKHSA, Fenland DC, APHA; ongoing concerns over noise, odours, dust.

Cambridgeshire (Cambridge Tribune) March 3, 2026 – Cambridgeshire County Council officers are pushing to approve a major expansion of waste operations at Saxon Pit despite mounting calls from residents, councillors, and regulators for a planning U-turn or postponement over unresolved environmental and safety risks. The decision looms at the planning committee meeting on 4 March 2026, where proposals by Johnsons Aggregate & Recycling Ltd to nearly double processing capacity to 614,000 tonnes annually face fierce opposition. Key concerns include drainage consents, heavy metal discharges, planning breaches, and public health impacts, amplifying fears in this Fenland community near Peterborough.

What is the Saxon Pit Expansion Proposal?

The application seeks to vary existing permissions at the former Saxon Brickworks site in Whittlesey, introducing outdoor crushing and screening of IBA a non-hazardous residue from waste incineration alongside increased C&D waste processing. Annual throughput would rise from 250,000 to 614,000 tonnes, with HGV movements surging from 92 to 332 per day and taller stockpiles. Council officers recommend approval with 30 conditions, as reported by BBC News, noting oversight by multiple authorities including the Environment Agency for environmental permits, Cambridgeshire County Council for waste planning and public health, and Fenland District Council for local health matters.

Site operator Johnson Aggregates Recycling Limited (formerly associated with East Midlands Waste Management Ltd) holds an environmental permit for deposit for recovery operations dating back to 30 January 2012, following remediation of eastern voids post-brickworks closure. Historical operations included clay extraction and kilns under Forterra’s Pollution Prevention and Control permit from 2004.​

Why Are Residents Demanding a Planning U-turn?

Local opposition centres on health and environmental risks, with residents near Saxon Pit complaining of dust forcing them to wash vehicles and window sills, as shared with BBC News. The Saxongate Residents Group highlights conflicting risk assessments and questions whether cumulative contaminant loading over decades has been quantified, noting limited sampling data. As per their formal response,

“With only two apparent sampling points in time, it is not self-evident that one dataset invalidates the other.”

Cambs News reports standing water on operational surfaces and a concrete pad damaged twice in 12 months, risking toxic spread if throughput doubles. A free 52-seat coach has been organised for residents to attend the 4 March meeting, underscoring community mobilisation:

“Whittlesey is watching and that the people most affected expect their concerns to be taken seriously,”

states CambsNews.​

What Drainage and Flood Risks Are Involved?

Cllr Chris Boden, in a letter to council officer Helen Wass, warns of “outstanding issues around drainage and water discharge,” deeming approval “premature and potentially irresponsible.” As reported by CambsNews, the Middle Level Commissioners have formally requested deferral until consents are clarified, or refusal if not. Cllr Boden adds: “This is a significant change to operations at Saxon Pit. The council has a duty to ensure that expansion does not compromise flood risk, water management, or public safety. Until the regulatory position is clear, approval should be deferred.”

Fenland District Council agendas note cumulative traffic impacts from nearby housing developments exacerbating HGV increases.​

What Do Environment Agency Disclosures Reveal?

Cllr Boden’s 24 February 2026 letter, covered by CambsNews, cites an EA Environmental Information Request (EIR) disclosure obtained by Saxongate Residents Group, describing heavy metals in existing discharges as “quite shocking” before any expansion. This new evidence, alongside an ongoing internal EA review, prompts calls to reconsider officer recommendations. Residents note late EA disclosures and question modelling methodology and permit conditions.

Which Official Objections Have Been Lodged?

The Cambridgeshire Director of Public Health submitted recommendations for refusal, as highlighted by Steve Barclay on Facebook and Cllr Boden. Peterborough City Council highways authority also objects. Cllr Boden, as Whittlesey councillor and Fenland leader, asserts:

“Residents are right to expect that environmental and public health risks are fully assessed before any expansion is approved. Ignoring these concerns would be unacceptable and undermine public trust in the council.”

Council enforcement confirmed IBA storage breaches Condition 25. A prior public health risk assessment involved UKHSA, Fenland DC Environmental Health, APHA, EA, and council regulators, addressing community concerns.

What Does Dr Rollinson’s Critique Say?

A 43-page technical planning critique by Dr Rollinson, submitted November 2025 but published late on the council portal, intensifies scrutiny, as per CambsNews. It challenges contaminant assessments amid “evolving evidential landscape” that councillors have had little time to review.​

When and Where Is the Planning Committee Vote?

The vote is set for 4 March 2026 at 10.00am in New Shire Hall, Alconbury. The application has been under review for 18 months.

What Is CambsNews’s Stance on the Expansion?

In an editorial, CambsNews urges rejection or postponement:

“CambsNews argues that Cambridgeshire County Council should not approve the expansion… Recent developments and ongoing concerns demand that this decision be postponed.”

They emphasise:

“A short deferral would cost nothing but ensure decisions are based on stable, verified, and transparent evidence… The stakes are too high for rush decisions. Saxon Pit is not just another planning application it is a test of public trust, environmental stewardship, and community voice.”

Cambs News stands “firmly with the residents of Whittlesey: let their concerns be heard, properly considered, and fully resolved.”​

What Broader Context Surrounds Saxon Pit Operations?

Ongoing remediation of the eastern buttress since June 2021 aims for ecological benefits like wetlands and reed beds. A January 2026 Citizen Space update notes shifts to new engagement platforms. BBC reports call for “more evidence needed” on noise, odours, and dust impacts. Council public health convened an incident team for prior assessments.

The Saxongate Residents Group stresses:

“Overwhelming pressure to at least postpone the decision until all relevant information… is properly assimilated.” Cllr Boden concludes the FOI evidence alongside other objections makes immediate approval “no longer tenable.”

This saga tests regulatory balance between economic activity and community safeguards in Cambridgeshire’s Fenland. With the 4 March vote approaching, pressure mounts for caution amid unresolved issues.