A residents’ group in Whittlesey is urging regulators to strengthen oversight of local waste operations, warning that public confidence has eroded and long-term health and environmental risks remain under-examined.
The Saxongate Residents Group, which campaigns for businesses “to follow rules and avoid needless pollution,” said it is continuing to press agencies, councillors and MPs to ensure robust monitoring at both the controversial Saxon Pit site in Whittlesey (above) and the new Medworth energy-from-waste plant being built in Wisbech.
The group took part in a multi-agency meeting last week hosted by Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC), attended by town, district and county councillors along with a representative of the local MP Steve Barclay. CCC called the meeting and said it was being convened partly because a lack of public trust had been recognised in how Saxon Pit has been regulated.
Enforcement Action Underway
Core regulators — the Environment Agency (EA), CCC and Fenland District Council’s Environmental Health team — provided updates that indicated some enforcement actions had already taken place at Saxon Pit, with others ongoing. Official notes from the meeting are expected soon.
In addition, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has begun an independent review into potential health risks linked to particulate matter at the site, including Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate (IBA(A)). UKHSA scientists are drawing on data from agencies and will test compliance against existing regulations. However, the adequacy of those standards themselves will not be examined in this review.
The review is expected to run through October, with findings anticipated around Christmas or in early 2026. Extra site testing has already been carried out, with details to be included in the UKHSA report. The process will not include a public consultation, but Saxongate says it will carefully scrutinise the findings.
At the same meeting, officials confirmed that a 2024 planning application by Johnsons Aggregates and Recycling Ltd to increase annual IBA throughput at Saxon Pit from 250,000 tonnes to 460,000 tonnes is unlikely to be heard this year. By comparison, the proposed Wisbech “mega incinerator” would produce around 125,000 tonnes of IBA annually.
Spotlight Shifts to Medworth Plant
While campaigning continues in Whittlesey, Saxongate has also turned its attention to the Medworth energy-from-waste facility in Wisbech. The group this week published a detailed report, Beyond the Models – Medworth Monitoring, highlighting what it calls “critical gaps” in the plant’s approved monitoring regime.
According to the report, the current framework includes continuous in-stack monitoring for pollutants such as particulates, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide, along with twice-yearly tests for metals and dioxins. Off-site testing is limited to groundwater checks every five years and soil checks every ten, measures designed primarily to detect leaching rather than airborne deposition.
Local air quality monitoring will cover nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM₁₀ and PM₂.₅) for four years after the plant becomes operational. But crucially, Saxongate says there is no requirement to test the chemical composition of particles, nor to monitor whether pollutants accumulate in soil, crops, milk or meat — even though the project’s own assessments noted that food-chain uptake could be a more significant pathway than inhalation.
“The danger is that particle counts alone give a false sense of safety,” the report warns. “The real test is chemical composition and long-term accumulation, not just short-term dust levels.”
Lessons from Abroad
To illustrate the risks of relying on dust counts without chemical analysis, Saxongate points to the Ivry-sur-Seine incinerator in Paris. Despite staying within legal limits for dust emissions, school ventilation filters nearby reportedly showed elevated levels of dioxins, PFAS and heavy metals.
“This demonstrates how mass-based dust figures can mask risk when a small fraction of particles carries persistent toxic compounds,” the group’s report states.
Calls for Stronger Safeguards
Saxongate is calling for baseline sampling before the Wisbech plant becomes operational, followed by ongoing biomonitoring of soil, crops, milk and meat for the life of the facility. The group argues that without such checks, regulators and the public will have to rely solely on computer models that may never be validated against real-world evidence.
“There is no planned biomonitoring of soil, crops, milk, or meat to show whether contaminants are moving through the food chain,” the report concludes. “Without these checks, the community is asked to trust predictions that will never be tested.”
Fenland District Council revoked Wisbech’s two Air Quality Management Areas earlier this year under Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rules, leaving the developer-funded Local Air Quality Monitoring Strategy as the only scheme in place. That strategy will run for just four years post-operation, raising further concerns about long-term protection.
For Saxongate, the issue comes down to fairness and trust. “You don’t take down smoke alarms just because you haven’t had a fire,” the group argues. “The same logic should apply here: health risks need checking for the life of the plant, not just the start.”
Community Engagement
The group is now inviting feedback on its Medworth report and says it hopes to open a constructive discussion on how monitoring can be improved. According to Saxongate, MVV has said it has no contract to send ash from Medworth to Whittlesey and that it is not part of current plans. Saxongate maintains that protecting Fenland’s farmland and food chain from possible contamination is a shared priority.
Residents who believe they may be affected by issues linked to Saxon Pit are being urged to contact the group directly for advice on the best routes for reporting concerns.
As the UKHSA review progresses and debate over Medworth intensifies, Saxongate insists it will continue to hold regulators and operators to account — and keep pressing for stronger safeguards to protect both public health and the environment.
