Object
Preferred Options consultation document
Representation ID: 98062
Received: 24/10/2019
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Trevor & Doreen Dann
Number of people: 2
MIN 213- MANSOM PLANTATION
My wife and I wish to register our objection to NCC's support of the proposed development of Mansom Plantation for aggregate excavation by "CEMEX".
Devastation
At no point does NCC highlight the extreme damage that will be caused to the site, which lies in the centre of our village.
The extant planning permission for the 98 lodges was granted at appeal with emphasis placed on the environmental statement and plan for the development. Should CEMEX be granted permission the site will be totally destroyed and NCC, whilst stating the site will be restored, have clearly not made any reference to the approved plan. Restoration will not be achieved in less than 60 years after cessation of excavation.
The ancient habitat and tracks of the wildlife will be lost, leading to more unnecessary upset and road kill.
Whilst NCC state that the 76 lorries will turn left to the A140 they will not be able to enforce such action and the drivers will travel the shortest route which in turn, will create more danger along Shortthorn Road and at the junctions with the Cromer and Holt Road.
The proposed 60 metre screening will not isolate the local residents from the works, who will have to tolerate noise, dust and the effect that the dust has on life.
Where will the fill come from to enable the restoration? We would suggest that the value of good fill will be similar to that of the excavated material.
Alternative Aggregate Suppliers
Within our local area there are three which are working with all necessary infrastructure that may be extended, whilst there are two others deemed suitable. Of the last two, MIN202 is controlled by CEMEX.
We feel the disturbance to local traffic by the foregoing plants is minimal, due to the locations of the sites, away from village centres.
As there are adequate existing facilities to meet forthcoming need, one questions NCC's enthusiasm for Mansom Plantation.
Conclusion
We object to the use of Mansom Plantation for aggregate because:
1. It is situated in the centre of our village.
2. The site will be totally decimated for years.
3. There are adequate local suppliers existing, questioning the need.
4. The loss of many trees, some of which are substantial and will not be replaced.
5. The increase in traffic along a road without footpaths.
6. Danger to wildlife.
7. The unacceptable impact on the immediate local residents.
8. The unacceptable noise and visual impact to all travelling along the A140 Cromer Road.
Finally, we conclude that there is nothing that can be said in favour of the proposal and we therefore reaffirm our OBJECTION and urge the decision makers to fully appreciate the enormity of their responsibility.
MIN 213- MANSOM PLANTATION
My wife and I wish to register our objection to NCC's support of the proposed development of Mansom Plantation for aggregate excavation by "CEMEX".
Devastation
At no point does NCC highlight the extreme damage that will be caused to the site, which lies in the centre of our village.
The extant planning permission for the 98 lodges was granted at appeal with emphasis placed on the environmental statement and plan for the development. Should CEMEX be granted permission the site will be totally destroyed and NCC, whilst stating the site will be restored, have clearly not made any reference to the approved plan. Restoration will not be achieved in less than 60 years after cessation of excavation.
The ancient habitat and tracks of the wildlife will be lost, leading to more unnecessary upset and road kill.
Whilst NCC state that the 76 lorries will turn left to the A140 they will not be able to enforce such action and the drivers will travel the shortest route which in turn, will create more danger along Shortthorn Road and at the junctions with the Cromer and Holt Road.
The proposed 60 metre screening will not isolate the local residents from the works, who will have to tolerate noise, dust and the effect that the dust has on life.
Where will the fill come from to enable the restoration? We would suggest that the value of good fill will be similar to that of the excavated material.
Alternative Aggregate Suppliers
Within our local area there are three which are working with all necessary infrastructure that may be extended, whilst there are two others deemed suitable. Of the last two, MIN202 is controlled by CEMEX.
We feel the disturbance to local traffic by the foregoing plants is minimal, due to the locations of the sites, away from village centres.
As there are adequate existing facilities to meet forthcoming need, one questions NCC's enthusiasm for Mansom Plantation.
Conclusion
We object to the use of Mansom Plantation for aggregate because:
1. It is situated in the centre of our village.
2. The site will be totally decimated for years.
3. There are adequate local suppliers existing, questioning the need.
4. The loss of many trees, some of which are substantial and will not be replaced.
5. The increase in traffic along a road without footpaths.
6. Danger to wildlife.
7. The unacceptable impact on the immediate local residents.
8. The unacceptable noise and visual impact to all travelling along the A140 Cromer Road.
Finally, we conclude that there is nothing that can be said in favour of the proposal and we therefore reaffirm our OBJECTION and urge the decision makers to fully appreciate the enormity of their responsibility.