Object
Preferred Options consultation document
Representation ID: 98185
Received: 09/10/2019
Respondent: Mr Stewart Wragg
Number of people: 3
I am writing on behalf of myself, Mr Stewart Wragg, Mr Maurice Burrage and Mr Michael Burrage.
As regular users of the area proposed in MIN38 we are horrified at the idea of further destruction of a valuable local beauty spot that is extensively used by many people, for dog walking, horse riding, ramblers, nature and bird watchers as well as schools for presumably nature studies, the destruction of this area would have a devastating effect on a diverse local wildlife population, as well as taking away a valuable local recreation area of wonderful natural beauty, to which the company have already caused extensive and unnecessary damage that will take decades to recover.
There is also the factor as stated in your own report of the historical value of the site and although it is claimed that the excavations will avoid the WW2 site and the old railway bridge, I believe this to be untrue based on the plan shown in your report the southern area proposed is right on top of a network of WW2 tunnels and bunkers which would be destroyed and lost forever should this be allowed to continue. Unfortunately many people believe that being a relatively modern site as WW2 is still in living memory, that it is not important enough to warrant protection, and it is this very fact that is causing the destruction of many important historical sites, which we should really be preserving, or this more recent history will become much like the dark ages with almost nothing left in our country of this very important period.
Next the increase in heavy traffic proposed will also have an adverse effect on the area, again for the local wildlife, as well as the human population in the area, and the local animal sanctuaries in the area with increased noise, and traffic. As well as the proposed right turn lane to be put on Beccles causing major disruption to area.
Finally your own report conclusions state that the site is not suitable for such a proposal and We therefore urge you to refuse this proposal and maintain at least this portion of our rapidly diminishing countryside and local beauty spots.
I am writing on behalf of myself, Mr Stewart Wragg, Mr Maurice Burrage and Mr Michael Burrage
As regular users of the area proposed in MIN38 we are horrified at the idea of further destruction of a valuable local beauty spot that is extensively used by many people, for dog walking, horse riding, ramblers, nature and bird watchers as well as schools for presumably nature studies, the destruction of this area would have a devastating effect on a diverse local wildlife population, as well as taking away a valuable local recreation area of wonderful natural beauty, to which the company have already caused extensive and unnecessary damage that will take decades to recover.
There is also the factor as stated in your own report of the historical value of the site and although it is claimed that the excavations will avoid the WW2 site and the old railway bridge, I believe this to be untrue based on the plan shown in your report the southern area proposed is right on top of a network of WW2 tunnels and bunkers which would be destroyed and lost forever should this be allowed to continue. Unfortunately many people believe that being a relatively modern site as WW2 is still in living memory, that it is not important enough to warrant protection, and it is this very fact that is causing the destruction of many important historical sites, which we should really be preserving, or this more recent history will become much like the dark ages with almost nothing left in our country of this very important period.
Next the increase in heavy traffic proposed will also have an adverse effect on the area, again for the local wildlife, as well as the human population in the area, and the local animal sanctuaries in the area with increased noise, and traffic. As well as the proposed right turn lane to be put on Beccles causing major disruption to area.
Finally your own report conclusions state that the site is not suitable for such a proposal and We therefore urge you to refuse this proposal and maintain at least this portion of our rapidly diminishing countryside and local beauty spots.