Object
Preferred Options consultation document
Representation ID: 98046
Received: 14/10/2019
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Peter & Helen Scott
Number of people: 2
We are writing to formally object to the plan to include the above site in a future Minerals and Waste Development Plan.
There are many reasons why the inclusion of this site should be objected to, especially by those who live in this area, amongst which are the following.
This is an area with a wide range of wildlife; both kites and buzzards have established themselves strongly in recent years and along with the deer, hare, pheasant and other game birds, provide a very well balanced system. This would undoubtedly be affected by the proposed site being operated for a prolonged period of time. There are also many bats and smaller creatures that would be affected.
In our opinion it is unconscionable to destroy such a large piece of agricultural land for industrial use given the importance of that agriculture to the economy, both of the County and the Country, and even more so given the increasing population. We understand that there is a need for building materials but would strongly argue that to destroy agricultural land, in order to satisfy that need, would be a retrograde step.
Although Southburgh is not heavily populated there are several homes within a short distance of this site. They would undoubtedly be adversely affected in many ways should this plan be effected; noise, pollution and most importantly the risk to the water supply of many of those properties.
It is clear that quarries can use large quantities of water for processing and dust suppression and the process may cause major degradation of water resources either by drawdown of groundwater levels leading to the drying up of wells, diversion or damming of surface watercourses, and contamination of waters by uncontrolled site discharges. Possible lowering of the water table may affect supplies of water to local properties who are on boreholes, which are many, and the local rivers and ponds. This is not to mention the possibility of contamination of the local water supply through the disturbance of heavy metals and nutrient pollutants. What guarantees will be given about the protection of this vital resource, if that is at all possible?
Since moving here almost 10 years ago we have on several occasions seen the local farmers struggle to keep their crops watered. Climate change has led to unreliable rainfall and they often have to rely on pumping water from boreholes to keep crops alive. This proposal will jeopardise that option and could well affect the viability of agricultural land far greater than the actual site in question.
The area immediately surrounding the proposed site is an important amenity to those local to it. It is surrounded by lanes, bridleways and a byway that are very regularly used by walkers and for other exercises. This proposal would clearly damage that amenity by creating significant risk to walkers on the lanes, and by noise and other pollution of the immediate area.
Last but by no means least, is the issue of traffic. Large agricultural vehicles already use the lanes around this site and are a clear hazard to residents, which is accepted given the nature of the location. The lanes are often dangerously dirty and slippery because of this and as most of the lanes are single track, passing is often very tricky. This is, of course, accepted. We are in an agricultural area and the farming is vital not only to those involved but also to the local and national economies.
To deliberately increase these hazards and risks by increasing the passage of heavy vehicles considerably would seem to be quite reckless. We understand that the proposal estimates 18 truckloads of gravel per day will be removed from the site. It appears that a typical loaded truck will be in the region of 20 to 30 Tonnes, if not greater. There is only one road to and from that site remotely capable of carrying such traffic (Woodrising Road) and even it has parts where it would not be possible for two vehicles to pass, were one a truck weighing 30T.
The other lanes to and from the site are almost all single track and the risk created by having large trucks using them regularly is clear. Further, none of the lanes around the site are in what might be termed a good condition. Most have large numbers of potholes and edge damage. Allowing the proposed increase in heavy traffic would inevitably increase the damages could make some of the lanes impassable to normal traffic.
Extending the consideration of the increased traffic to a larger area, villages such as Hingham, Cranworth and Shipdham would suffer serious risk and damage by this large number of heavy vehicles passing through regularly.
We trust this matter will be given due and proper consideration before allowing what we consider to be a very negative and ill conceived proposal.
We are writing to formally object to the plan to include the above site in a future Minerals and Waste Development Plan.
There are many reasons why the inclusion of this site should be objected to, especially by those who live in this area, amongst which are the following.
This is an area with a wide range of wildlife; both kites and buzzards have established themselves strongly in recent years and along with the deer, hare, pheasant and other game birds, provide a very well balanced system. This would undoubtedly be affected by the proposed site being operated for a prolonged period of time. There are also many bats and smaller creatures that would be affected.
In our opinion it is unconscionable to destroy such a large piece of agricultural land for industrial use given the importance of that agriculture to the economy, both of the County and the Country, and even more so given the increasing population. We understand that there is a need for building materials but would strongly argue that to destroy agricultural land, in order to satisfy that need, would be a retrograde step.
Although Southburgh is not heavily populated there are several homes within a short distance of this site. They would undoubtedly be adversely affected in many ways should this plan be effected; noise, pollution and most importantly the risk to the water supply of many of those properties.
It is clear that quarries can use large quantities of water for processing and dust suppression and the process may cause major degradation of water resources either by drawdown of groundwater levels leading to the drying up of wells, diversion or damming of surface watercourses, and contamination of waters by uncontrolled site discharges. Possible lowering of the water table may affect supplies of water to local properties who are on boreholes, which are many, and the local rivers and ponds. This is not to mention the possibility of contamination of the local water supply through the disturbance of heavy metals and nutrient pollutants. What guarantees will be given about the protection of this vital resource, if that is at all possible?
Since moving here almost 10 years ago we have on several occasions seen the local farmers struggle to keep their crops watered. Climate change has led to unreliable rainfall and they often have to rely on pumping water from boreholes to keep crops alive. This proposal will jeopardise that option and could well affect the viability of agricultural land far greater than the actual site in question.
The area immediately surrounding the proposed site is an important amenity to those local to it. It is surrounded by lanes, bridleways and a byway that are very regularly used by walkers and for other exercises. This proposal would clearly damage that amenity by creating significant risk to walkers on the lanes, and by noise and other pollution of the immediate area.
Last but by no means least, is the issue of traffic. Large agricultural vehicles already use the lanes around this site and are a clear hazard to residents, which is accepted given the nature of the location. The lanes are often dangerously dirty and slippery because of this and as most of the lanes are single track, passing is often very tricky. This is, of course, accepted. We are in an agricultural area and the farming is vital not only to those involved but also to the local and national economies.
To deliberately increase these hazards and risks by increasing the passage of heavy vehicles considerably would seem to be quite reckless. We understand that the proposal estimates 18 truckloads of gravel per day will be removed from the site. It appears that a typical loaded truck will be in the region of 20 to 30 Tonnes, if not greater. There is only one road to and from that site remotely capable of carrying such traffic (Woodrising Road) and even it has parts where it would not be possible for two vehicles to pass, were one a truck weighing 30T.
The other lanes to and from the site are almost all single track and the risk created by having large trucks using them regularly is clear. Further, none of the lanes around the site are in what might be termed a good condition. Most have large numbers of potholes and edge damage. Allowing the proposed increase in heavy traffic would inevitably increase the damages could make some of the lanes impassable to normal traffic.
Extending the consideration of the increased traffic to a larger area, villages such as Hingham, Cranworth and Shipdham would suffer serious risk and damage by this large number of heavy vehicles passing through regularly.
We trust this matter will be given due and proper consideration before allowing what we consider to be a very negative and ill conceived proposal.