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.comAttached: 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.
