Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 91895
Received: 30/07/2018
Respondent: Mr Mark Greene
I am a resident of Beeston (Breckland) and a Parish Councillor for Beeston with Bittering.
Having read the Initial Consultation Minerals Sites I would like to comment regarding "MIN 23 - land north of Back Lane, Beeston"
This site is and always will be completely inappropriate for mineral extraction for very tangible reasons which cannot by any reasonable measure be mitigated by the council, land owners or contractors extracting minerals:
1. The proposed site is far too close to residential property. An established mineral extraction business (East Anglian Stone) is situated further away from the proposed site and you can hear their machinery and generators from residential properties in Beeston already. The precise volume is very subject to wind direction on any given day and is very noticeable if travelling along a SE trajectory. There is literally no practical measures that can be taken to offset the noise and air pollution, you would have to build a bank so enormously high to have any effect it surely is impractical to do so. The result would be an endless conflict between residents, Environmental Health and the contractors probably ending in litigation.
2. The proposed site is also far too close equine live stock sensitive to air and noise pollution which risks injury to the animals and people if they are agitated by unnatural noise. The location of grazing land/paddocks is potentially much closer than the stated distances to residential dwellings and you should examine the property boundaries from both Street Farm and Jallis House on Back Lane for a more accurate view.
3. There is already a proposed or pending application by East Anglian Stone to extend their mineral extraction on the northern boundary of the proposed site which will add to noise and air pollution as is. We have on the Parish Council received objections and concerns for this activity which is far less disruptive than the proposed mineral extraction in this consultation.
4. When I had planning approved to build a 20m x 40m riding ménage it came with conditions for a full archaeology survey for reasons of heritage protection and documentation to a sensitive area. The proposed mineral extraction in this area (probably only a few hundred metres away) is orders of magnitude above the land disruption I required so I would expect even greater scrutiny and care to be taken which must come at an enormous cost less the contractor be allowed to take massive short cuts on the archaeology study.
5. One of Beeston's characteristics and features of the area is the land contours and subtle hill of the neighbourhood, right where the proposed mineral extraction site is planning to effectively level off the land. Whilst Beeston with Bittering is not registered as an area of outstanding natural beauty the proposed mineral extraction at this site would noticeably alter the character of the area in a highly visible and negative way.
6. The length of time for the proposed mineral extraction is approximately 10years, that is a totally unreasonable length of time for residents to be impacted by the sustained noise and air pollution of a mid Norfolk rural village.
7. Beckland Planning Authority recently permitted the building of four new residential properties north of The Street (Beeston) which back on to the proposed mineral extraction site, they are being built at the moment. It really isn't acceptable to allow building of new housing next or adjacent to a substantial mineral extraction site. If NCC wanted to seriously consider this site for mineral extraction you should have directed Breckland to not permit the building of further residential dwellings in this area for obvious reasons.
The "MIN 08 - land north of Stoney Lane, Beetley" site looks to be more appropriate, you have alternative sites so I would urge you to reject "MIN 23 - land north of Back Lane, Beeston" site this time and forever more as being inappropriate for such large scale mineral extraction.
I am a resident of Beeston (Breckland) and a Parish Councillor for Beeston with Bittering.
Having read the Initial Consultation Minerals Sites I would like to comment regarding "MIN 23 - land north of Back Lane, Beeston"
This site is and always will be completely inappropriate for mineral extraction for very tangible reasons which cannot by any reasonable measure be mitigated by the council, land owners or contractors extracting minerals:
1. The proposed site is far too close to residential property. An established mineral extraction business (East Anglian Stone) is situated further away from the proposed site and you can hear their machinery and generators from residential properties in Beeston already. The precise volume is very subject to wind direction on any given day and is very noticeable if travelling along a SE trajectory. There is literally no practical measures that can be taken to offset the noise and air pollution, you would have to build a bank so enormously high to have any effect it surely is impractical to do so. The result would be an endless conflict between residents, Environmental Health and the contractors probably ending in litigation.
2. The proposed site is also far too close equine live stock sensitive to air and noise pollution which risks injury to the animals and people if they are agitated by unnatural noise. The location of grazing land/paddocks is potentially much closer than the stated distances to residential dwellings and you should examine the property boundaries from both Street Farm and Jallis House on Back Lane for a more accurate view.
3. There is already a proposed or pending application by East Anglian Stone to extend their mineral extraction on the northern boundary of the proposed site which will add to noise and air pollution as is. We have on the Parish Council received objections and concerns for this activity which is far less disruptive than the proposed mineral extraction in this consultation.
4. When I had planning approved to build a 20m x 40m riding ménage it came with conditions for a full archaeology survey for reasons of heritage protection and documentation to a sensitive area. The proposed mineral extraction in this area (probably only a few hundred metres away) is orders of magnitude above the land disruption I required so I would expect even greater scrutiny and care to be taken which must come at an enormous cost less the contractor be allowed to take massive short cuts on the archaeology study.
5. One of Beeston's characteristics and features of the area is the land contours and subtle hill of the neighbourhood, right where the proposed mineral extraction site is planning to effectively level off the land. Whilst Beeston with Bittering is not registered as an area of outstanding natural beauty the proposed mineral extraction at this site would noticeably alter the character of the area in a highly visible and negative way.
6. The length of time for the proposed mineral extraction is approximately 10years, that is a totally unreasonable length of time for residents to be impacted by the sustained noise and air pollution of a mid Norfolk rural village.
7. Beckland Planning Authority recently permitted the building of four new residential properties north of The Street (Beeston) which back on to the proposed mineral extraction site, they are being built at the moment. It really isn't acceptable to allow building of new housing next or adjacent to a substantial mineral extraction site. If NCC wanted to seriously consider this site for mineral extraction you should have directed Breckland to not permit the building of further residential dwellings in this area for obvious reasons.
The "MIN 08 - land north of Stoney Lane, Beetley" site looks to be more appropriate, you have alternative sites so I would urge you to reject "MIN 23 - land north of Back Lane, Beeston" site this time and forever more as being inappropriate for such large scale mineral extraction.