Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 91932
Received: 06/08/2018
Respondent: Ms Imogen Radford
I'm writing to say that I strongly object to the very suggestion that Waveney Forest/Fritton Wood would be destroyed and replaced with an enormous gravel pit.
I welcome the conclusion that the site is unsuitable for allocation.
I urge you to recognise the major disadvantages of such a proposal and the severe impact of the loss of an extremely important area for people, for heritage, and for wildlife, and to reject this proposal as totally unsuitable and unacceptable.
I live in Dereham but visit the area from time to time.
I was very shocked to find out about this example of an investment company working with a mineral mining company to devastate a much loved local forest for profit. I visited the wood first a couple of years ago in spring and was very impressed. It was a beautiful, peaceful and pleasant place to walk, with the paths through the woodlands -- conifers with some birch trees and a few bird cherry trees in flower, and the reeds and Waveney River right next to it.
I find it very hard to understand why a popular wood, used by local people and visitors such as myself, and people from Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, is seen as dispensable. Woodlands are extremely important for recreation, particularly in an area where there isn't much choice -- agricultural land is not usually open apart from a few foot paths, and the seaside though lovely is a little way away and very busy especially in summer. Forests have a remarkable capacity to swallow up visitors -- there can be a lot of visitors but as the people are dispersed the forest remains peaceful.
Peaceful is not what the area will be if this is allowed to go ahead -- there will be continual noise from machinery, lorries, not to mention the travel disruption, and pollution.
I understand there is some important wildlife in the wood, and archaeological remains.
And it is within the Norfolk Broads, which makes it even more unbelievable that such a destructive proposal could even be considered.
You say that the site could also be subject to very good restoration scheme, offering significant ecological gains of wet woodland and lowland heath land were both included.
But people love the forest as it is now, and would no doubt use a restored woodland -- that doesn't need to be mineral extraction for the woodland to be restored. Part of the site is heathland and reed beds, but part of the restoration would need to be woodland for people to enjoy and for wildlife.
Would there be continued public access during extraction and even greater public access on restoration? If so, what sort of access will there be to a gravel pit, and what kind of pleasure can anyone take in such a visit? Losing a large area of beautiful forest which is enjoyable to walk through, and replacing it with a walk along the edge of a working gravel pits with enormous machinery, noise, dust and pollution -- I don't think that's much of a substitute. And increased access after restoration is a poor substitute -- what are people going to do in the meantime? Retaining an existing tree belt as suggested in the conclusion would not be enough.
I note that in your conclusions you list the disadvantages -- impact on Broads authority area, on wildlife, on woodland habitat, loss of access, noise and dust and archaeological impact.
I'm pleased that in the document you come to the conclusion that the scheme is unacceptable.
I urge you to recognise the major disadvantages of such a proposal and the severe impact of the loss of an extremely important area for people, for heritage, and for wildlife, and to reject this proposal as totally unsuitable and unacceptable.
I'm writing to say that I strongly object to the very suggestion that Waveney Forest/Fritton Wood would be destroyed and replaced with an enormous gravel pit.
I welcome the conclusion that the site is unsuitable for allocation.
I urge you to recognise the major disadvantages of such a proposal and the severe impact of the loss of an extremely important area for people, for heritage, and for wildlife, and to reject this proposal as totally unsuitable and unacceptable.
I live in Dereham but visit the area from time to time.
I was very shocked to find out about this example of an investment company working with a mineral mining company to devastate a much loved local forest for profit. I visited the wood first a couple of years ago in spring and was very impressed. It was a beautiful, peaceful and pleasant place to walk, with the paths through the woodlands -- conifers with some birch trees and a few bird cherry trees in flower, and the reeds and Waveney River right next to it.
I find it very hard to understand why a popular wood, used by local people and visitors such as myself, and people from Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, is seen as dispensable. Woodlands are extremely important for recreation, particularly in an area where there isn't much choice -- agricultural land is not usually open apart from a few foot paths, and the seaside though lovely is a little way away and very busy especially in summer. Forests have a remarkable capacity to swallow up visitors -- there can be a lot of visitors but as the people are dispersed the forest remains peaceful.
Peaceful is not what the area will be if this is allowed to go ahead -- there will be continual noise from machinery, lorries, not to mention the travel disruption, and pollution.
I understand there is some important wildlife in the wood, and archaeological remains.
And it is within the Norfolk Broads, which makes it even more unbelievable that such a destructive proposal could even be considered.
You say that the site could also be subject to very good restoration scheme, offering significant ecological gains of wet woodland and lowland heath land were both included.
But people love the forest as it is now, and would no doubt use a restored woodland -- that doesn't need to be mineral extraction for the woodland to be restored. Part of the site is heathland and reed beds, but part of the restoration would need to be woodland for people to enjoy and for wildlife.
Would there be continued public access during extraction and even greater public access on restoration? If so, what sort of access will there be to a gravel pit, and what kind of pleasure can anyone take in such a visit? Losing a large area of beautiful forest which is enjoyable to walk through, and replacing it with a walk along the edge of a working gravel pits with enormous machinery, noise, dust and pollution -- I don't think that's much of a substitute. And increased access after restoration is a poor substitute -- what are people going to do in the meantime? Retaining an existing tree belt as suggested in the conclusion would not be enough.
I note that in your conclusions you list the disadvantages -- impact on Broads authority area, on wildlife, on woodland habitat, loss of access, noise and dust and archaeological impact.
I'm pleased that in the document you come to the conclusion that the scheme is unacceptable.
I urge you to recognise the major disadvantages of such a proposal and the severe impact of the loss of an extremely important area for people, for heritage, and for wildlife, and to reject this proposal as totally unsuitable and unacceptable.