Cllr Roy Gerstner – Community Activist

All councillors received an e-mail from a very concerned resident, pointing out her issues around ‘Whittlesey’….

I am writing to express my deep frustration, disappointment, and concern regarding the continued approval and construction of new housing developments in Whittlesey.

Many residents are struggling to understand why yet another housing estate is being allowed to proceed when the town’s existing infrastructure is already under immense pressure. It feels as though the needs of current residents are being overlooked while the population continues to grow.

One of our biggest concerns is healthcare. It is already extremely difficult to obtain a GP appointment. Many residents struggle even to get through on the phone, and access to local healthcare services is becoming increasingly inadequate. Before approving more housing, should there not have been proper consideration of how medical services would cope with the additional demand?

The roads in and around Whittlesey are also at breaking point. Traffic congestion is becoming unbearable, commuting is increasingly difficult, and residents are simply fed up with the volume of vehicles using our roads every day. The town’s infrastructure was clearly not designed to accommodate the level of growth we are now experiencing.

Our schools are another example of a system under strain. Many are already operating at or near capacity, and parents face constant difficulties with parking and drop-off arrangements. It is hard to understand how further development can be justified without clear investment in education facilities and supporting infrastructure.

What is most disappointing is the perception that no one is truly representing the interests of the people of Whittlesey. Residents repeatedly raise concerns about healthcare, roads, schools, and local services, yet it appears that housing expansion continues regardless.

Many residents would also like to understand what is being done to support the wider development of the town. Why are we not attracting a broader range of quality businesses and services that would benefit the community, create jobs, and improve the town centre? Instead, there seems to be a growing concentration of vape shops and barber shops, while other valuable businesses and amenities are noticeably absent.

The people of Whittlesey deserve answers. We deserve to know:

• How the existing GP services will cope with further population growth.
• What plans exist to improve roads and traffic management.
• How school capacity issues will be addressed.
• What representations the Council has made on behalf of residents regarding infrastructure concerns.
• What action is being taken to attract diverse businesses and support the long-term prosperity of the town.

Growth should only be supported when the infrastructure, services, and facilities required to support that growth are already in place or guaranteed to be delivered. At present, many residents feel that development is happening first, while the needs of existing communities are being ignored.

I urge the Council to listen to the concerns of local residents and to explain how it intends to protect the quality of life of those who already live in Whittlesey.

I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully……

A reply will be given in due course from our Mayor and Chair of the Planning Committee,
Cllr Miscandlon.

Unfortunately the resident has NOT been reading this web-blog for the past 15+ years…?
Some if not most of our councillors are on the same views about issues and concerns…many outside our remit or financing.

I invite the said resident to ‘get involved’

FYI…..the below happens regularly doesn’t help promote our town….that said it is cleared up very quickly.

Meeting scheduled for Tuesday evening has been postponed to a date yet to be decided.

Invitation to Support Sir Harry Smith’s New Enrichment Programme

Good afternoon,

I am writing to invite you, or a representative from your club or business, to join us at Sir Harry Smith Community College on Wednesday 30^th September between 6.00pm and 7.00pm to discuss some exciting changes we are making to our school enrichment programme.

Our aim is simple: to provide our students with opportunities that inspire them, develop new skills, broaden their experiences and ultimately enrich their lives.

From this year, we will be running an enrichment programme every Friday from 2.00pm to 3.00pm. We are also exploring opportunities for some activities to take place off-site at venues across Whittlesey and the surrounding area.

We would love to explore how local clubs, organisations and businesses could become involved. There could be opportunities for external clubs to run sessions for our students, with the hope that this will inspire young people to continue participating in activities outside of school and potentially become members of your clubs or programmes.

We are also keen to explore partnership and sponsorship opportunities with local businesses, which could help us provide equipment, experiences and activities that we may otherwise struggle to fund.
We are genuinely passionate about improving the experiences and opportunities available to the young people in our care, and we believe that working with our local community is key to achieving this.

It would be wonderful if you could join us next Wednesday to hear more about our plans, share your ideas and explore how we might be able to work together.

If you are able to attend, please let me know.

Kind regards,
Paul Treliving
Sir Harry Smith Community College.

It was confirmed at the recent Whittlesey Town Council meeting that Johnsons Aggregates & Recycling Ltd (JARL) has appealed against Cambridgeshire County Council’s refusal of planning application CCC/24/091/VAR.

The application sought a substantial expansion of the Johnsons operation at Saxon Pit, including increased waste throughput, substantially more HGV movements, higher stockpiles, longer operating hours and changes to processing activities.

Saxongate Residents Group has this week written to CCC asking for the Planning Inspectorate appeal reference, start date and procedure, together with JARL’s grounds of appeal and Statement of Case. The group has also asked the Council to confirm that it will defend both reasons for refusal, who will prepare and present its case, and how it will manage the respective roles of officers now that the Council must defend a decision made against their recommendation.

That question matters because councillors refused the application against their own officers’ recommendation to approve.

Immediately after the decision, Saxongate formally challenged significant parts of the officer report which supported approval. CCC has declined to provide a substantive response to Saxongate’s challenge while the appeal process remains live, so those concerns remain unanswered as the appeal begins.

Among the issues Saxongate has raised are:

• Public Health recommended refusal. CCC’s own Public Health team opposed the expansion, citing cumulative impacts, gaps in the evidence and concerns about health and wellbeing.
• Existing HGV limits were already being exceeded. The officer report recorded around 140 HGV movements a day against a permitted 92, while the expansion sought up to 332 movements.
• Containment was reduced. The proposal allowed only 0.5 metres of freeboard against the Environment Agency permit’s 1 metre minimum, despite the officer report presenting the design as aligned with EA expectations.
• The recycling claim. The officer report treated the operation as recycling and gave it positive weight in the balance. Only the metals recovered count as recycling. Saxongate understands from the operator that this is around 3% of the material processed. The rest becomes IBAA, which remains regulated as waste. In Saxongate’s view, laying it under roads is, in effect, a form of linear landfill. 
• The claimed carbon benefit is also questioned. Independent review, including a May 2026 Zero Waste Europe report, describes the comparison between IBAA and virgin aggregate as complex and dependent on many variables, and notes that such calculations leave out the carbon cost of the incineration that produces the ash.
• The amount of metal being processed is not being disclosed. Metals separated from the ash at Saxon Pit now pass to an adjacent metals recycling facility for further processing, which began in September. Saxongate has asked for the tonnage processed. The operator and the Council have said this will not be made available to the community liaison group.
  The timing is particularly significant. Cambridgeshire County Council will present the findings of its Cumulative Health Impact Assessment for Saxon Pit at public online sessions on 7 October, while the appeal is live. Saxongate will comment further once that material is public.

  Saxongate intends to make representations on the appeal and will provide a further update once the appeal procedure and JARL’s case are confirmed.

  Saxongate Residents Group
  Contact: saxongate2022@gmail.com

  Attached:  Aerial view of the JARL site at Saxon Pit, 10 September 2026. Photo free to use.
  Note the condition of the solar panels on the main building roof.