Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review: Initial Public Consultation
MIN 71 - Objection
I am writing in response to the letter from Caroline Jeffery of 26th June 2018 concerning the above.
Notwithstanding all of the concerns (and mitigating measures) set out in pages 233 to 236 of the Initial Consultation document, I would wish to object to the development of site MIN 71 for the following reasons:
1. Min 71 is immediately adjacent to the town of Holt. North Norfolk is sparsely populated and there is therefore ample scope for this kind of development to take place on sites where the pollution and disruption caused will affect relatively small numbers of people. I note from a review of the other 40 proposed sites featured in the Consultation document that none of them is adjacent to a town with a population of a size comparable with Holt and to that extent MIN 71 seems out of line with all of the others.
2. The potential for noise and air pollution and general inconvenience for the adjacent population is likely to be exacerbated by the fact that the prevailing winds place Holt downwind of MIN 71. Holt primary school is particularly vulnerable in this regard. The issue of air pollution would be of particular concern if landfill activities were to form part of this site's ultimate restoration.
3. MIN 71 is skirted by the B1149. This is the main road both into and out of Holt to the South. Tourism is fundamental to the economic wellbeing both of Holt and the wider North Norfolk region and this stems from its reputation as a scenic and unspoilt holiday destination. If MIN 71 were to be developed, there would be a risk that every visitor's first and last impression of the town from this direction could be compromised. In terms of local economic activity and employment, tourism exceeds by far the potential benefits associated with a mining development of this type and it would be wrong to allow it to proceed if there was any question that it might negatively impact upon the potential for tourism in the area.
4. There are currently three working mining sites close to the town of Holt, one of which (Gresham's Gravel) has only recently opened. It is not clear form the Consultation document how long these existing local resources are expected to remain on stream. However, unless it can be demonstrated that within the relevant planning period, local supply of sand and gravel from these existing workings is expected to decline, or that local demand is expected to increase, I believe it would seem excessive to consider opening a fourth site in this area, particularly while it remains the case that a large proportion of the sand and gravel currently extracted in Norfolk is consumed outside of the county.
I very much hope the issues I have raised will be taken into consideration in the Preferred Options consultation process.