Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 91919
Received: 31/07/2018
Respondent: Mr J Browne
I am writing to inform you that I strongly disagree to proposed quarry at Holt MIN 71.
I would like you to respond to the following points please:
1/ How can Carter Concrete can be so sure that Cemex will cease operation in 2030, and why would Carter Concrete seek permission 12 years before Cemex has finished?
Surely, it would be madness for Carter Concrete Ltd to get a planning permission, spend money, develop site, and not be able to operate new quarry, as Cemex are still extracting. Indeed, Cemex could easily apply to extend their operation for 20, 30 or 50 years with the land they have available. Cemex could even "go slow", as it is not really in their interests to have another aggregate competitor. The only opinion I can give is that both companies must be in collusion with one another. If this site is approved, I would not be surprised if Cemex suddenly stopped extracting aggregate from their better located quarry.
With the above in mind, why would the planning department take the risk of granting early permission for a new, closer quarry, when there is an existing quarry with decades of aggregate, most of which can be extracted without impacting the nearby historic Georgian Town of Holt?
2/ How can a site in such close proximity of one of Norfolk's prettiest Georgian towns be considered suitable for allocation for sand and gravel extraction? I was under the impression it was extremely difficult to obtain planning permission for a quarry next to a village, let alone permission next to a historic Georgian market town. I would also like to draw your attention to the prevailing wind direction. You can see from the diagram attached below that all dust and noise will be carried directly over the adjacent Georgian market town of Holt.
3/ I would also like to point out, it will not just be 20-30 plus aggregate lorries a day, it will also be supplemented by 20-30 plus concrete lorries. The clue can be found in the name "Carter Concrete Ltd".
I look forward to your response.
I am writing to inform you that I strongly disagree to proposed quarry at Holt MIN 71.
I would like you to respond to the following points please:
1/ How can Carter Concrete can be so sure that Cemex will cease operation in 2030, and why would Carter Concrete seek permission 12 years before Cemex has finished?
Surely, it would be madness for Carter Concrete Ltd to get a planning permission, spend money, develop site, and not be able to operate new quarry, as Cemex are still extracting. Indeed, Cemex could easily apply to extend their operation for 20, 30 or 50 years with the land they have available. Cemex could even "go slow", as it is not really in their interests to have another aggregate competitor. The only opinion I can give is that both companies must be in collusion with one another. If this site is approved, I would not be surprised if Cemex suddenly stopped extracting aggregate from their better located quarry.
With the above in mind, why would the planning department take the risk of granting early permission for a new, closer quarry, when there is an existing quarry with decades of aggregate, most of which can be extracted without impacting the nearby historic Georgian Town of Holt?
2/ How can a site in such close proximity of one of Norfolk's prettiest Georgian towns be considered suitable for allocation for sand and gravel extraction? I was under the impression it was extremely difficult to obtain planning permission for a quarry next to a village, let alone permission next to a historic Georgian market town. I would also like to draw your attention to the prevailing wind direction. You can see from the diagram attached below that all dust and noise will be carried directly over the adjacent Georgian market town of Holt.
3/ I would also like to point out, it will not just be 20-30 plus aggregate lorries a day, it will also be supplemented by 20-30 plus concrete lorries. The clue can be found in the name "Carter Concrete Ltd".
I look forward to your response.