Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92494
Received: 10/08/2018
Respondent: Ms Z Sprake
I have only just heard about the application for extensions to Earsham Gravel Ltd's mineral extraction sites. I am very surprised that there has not been full consultation in the village as, the last time a major extension was proposed to Earsham Gravel, there was a display of the proposals in the village hall and local people were notified and encouraged to comment. This time, only a few people have received notification and little publicity has been given, with a short public consultation period.
Having read the proposal for each site, a number of questions and points of comment come to mind. I recognise that Earsham Gravel Ltd is a valued local business and that it needs new sites for ongoing development; also that the local gravel is prized throughout the country. However, I think that there should be genuine local consultation, not the absolute minimum possible, and that people need to have their concerns addressed before the application goes to the next stage. For this reason, I object to the proposed expansion of Earsham Gravel Ltd's sites in Earsham and ask for an extended consultation period, with full communication to all residents of the village and answers to questions raised.
The Initial Consultation Policies document states (4g) that the planning period extends to October 2020 and specific planning permission would follow that, yet the application for the site MIN 209 gives a potential start date of 2018 - that is, within the next four months. The dates for each project follow each other closely with no apparent allowance given for preparation or restoration, yet the documents also state that there will not be an overlap of projects and I would like to know a clearer timeframe of the whole procedure.
Restoration, in each case, is proposed to be wet grassland with ponds, landscaping etc and "geological exposure" (whatever that means) but whether that would be a public amenity, enclosed wildlife sanctuary, commercial or private fishing lakes, or anything else is not said. In addition, some 18 hectares of agricultural land will be permanently lost.
The land under consideration is at the bottom of a hill and, even with bundings in place to hide the sites from the village and main road, I wonder how much dust will be likely to drift towards the village over the main road and how much noise and visible disruption will affect those on higher ground. Two of the three sites are right by the A143 and I note that noise and dust assessments will be carried out and trust that careful consideration will be given to the results of the assessments.
In the plan for MIN 211, under Landscape, it is stated that part of the proposal is for the plant site to be moved into a restored area of the existing quarry site. However, it says it would be "preferable" for the plant site to be moved into one of the extension areas. This, slipped in so casually, is quite startling. I can see that, for the business of Earsham Gravel itself, it would be of great benefit to have the plant site by the main road rather than a long way down the single track Bath Hills Road. However, it's a huge, ugly area with great heaps of gravel and many lorries coming and going and the advantage of its present placement is that it affects very few residents. It's stated that it would be a "landscape improvement," but for whom or what? If one site is replaced by another, there is no overall improvement and there certainly would be a great impact on the new site; which would then not be restored as wet grassland.
I see that the estimated number of vehicle movements would be the same, but over a longer period - does this mean per day? The meaning is unclear and no explanation is given why the same number of vehicle movements needs a longer period of use.
Having only just read the application documents today and yet having immediately seen so many points that need to be clarified and addressed, I do hope that my concerns and objections are considered; initially in regard to the request for further public consultation.
Sites MIN 209, MIN 210, MIN 211
I have only just heard about the application for extensions to Earsham Gravel Ltd's mineral extraction sites. I am very surprised that there has not been full consultation in the village as, the last time a major extension was proposed to Earsham Gravel, there was a display of the proposals in the village hall and local people were notified and encouraged to comment. This time, only a few people have received notification and little publicity has been given, with a short public consultation period.
Having read the proposal for each site, a number of questions and points of comment come to mind. I recognise that Earsham Gravel Ltd is a valued local business and that it needs new sites for ongoing development; also that the local gravel is prized throughout the country. However, I think that there should be genuine local consultation, not the absolute minimum possible, and that people need to have their concerns addressed before the application goes to the next stage. For this reason, I object to the proposed expansion of Earsham Gravel Ltd's sites in Earsham and ask for an extended consultation period, with full communication to all residents of the village and answers to questions raised.
The Initial Consultation Policies document states (4g) that the planning period extends to October 2020 and specific planning permission would follow that, yet the application for the site MIN 209 gives a potential start date of 2018 - that is, within the next four months. The dates for each project follow each other closely with no apparent allowance given for preparation or restoration, yet the documents also state that there will not be an overlap of projects and I would like to know a clearer timeframe of the whole procedure.
Restoration, in each case, is proposed to be wet grassland with ponds, landscaping etc and "geological exposure" (whatever that means) but whether that would be a public amenity, enclosed wildlife sanctuary, commercial or private fishing lakes, or anything else is not said. In addition, some 18 hectares of agricultural land will be permanently lost.
The land under consideration is at the bottom of a hill and, even with bundings in place to hide the sites from the village and main road, I wonder how much dust will be likely to drift towards the village over the main road and how much noise and visible disruption will affect those on higher ground. Two of the three sites are right by the A143 and I note that noise and dust assessments will be carried out and trust that careful consideration will be given to the results of the assessments.
In the plan for MIN 211, under Landscape, it is stated that part of the proposal is for the plant site to be moved into a restored area of the existing quarry site. However, it says it would be "preferable" for the plant site to be moved into one of the extension areas. This, slipped in so casually, is quite startling. I can see that, for the business of Earsham Gravel itself, it would be of great benefit to have the plant site by the main road rather than a long way down the single track Bath Hills Road. However, it's a huge, ugly area with great heaps of gravel and many lorries coming and going and the advantage of its present placement is that it affects very few residents. It's stated that it would be a "landscape improvement," but for whom or what? If one site is replaced by another, there is no overall improvement and there certainly would be a great impact on the new site; which would then not be restored as wet grassland.
I see that the estimated number of vehicle movements would be the same, but over a longer period - does this mean per day? The meaning is unclear and no explanation is given why the same number of vehicle movements needs a longer period of use.
Having only just read the application documents today and yet having immediately seen so many points that need to be clarified and addressed, I do hope that my concerns and objections are considered; initially in regard to the request for further public consultation.