Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98255

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Stobart

Representation Summary:

I have tried to navigate your website to leave commentary in regards to your proposed quarry development but have found the site suitably difficult to navigate

I would raise the following objections to the proposed application

I am absolutely staggered at how close the quarry site is to my property and the surrounding settlement, why does it need to come so close increasing the risk of both noise and physical pollution to residents. I do not understand why you are seeking to elevate risk to such a level when the current quarry can be expanded directionally away from horstead, or reduced in capacity without exposing residents to an increased level of risk

The word " uncommon " in regards to dust being seen beyond 250m of the site boundary communicates to me that it is will be " common " by definition in that my property will be effected by dust pollution as its sits within the 250m boundary of the development - I do not understand why the scope of the quarry cannot be reduced to in order to limit these risks and not make either noise or dust pollution a critical issue, I am assuming that this a matter of commercial greed by the developer and that you as a council are happy to sacrifice the wellbeing of residents to facilitate this

How will you safeguard people's health to ensure there is no negative respiratory impact ?

I am also concerned for the mental health of all people subjected to the consistent noise of quarry workings so close to people's homes

I have questions regarding your existing facility

How do you currently monitor dust levels from the existing quarry ?
How do you monitor noise levels at the existing quarry ?
What are the agreed permissible limit's for both ?
Have these ever been breached ?
What action has been taken ?
Have these actions been closed out on time and in full ?

Please can you provide me with this information - if there are any gaps in adherence at the existing site then mitigating measures carry no weight at your proposed site and therefore the risk of noise and physical pollution

The existing water tower should be used as the demarcation point for the quarry boundary, this would also enable the natural topography of the land to provide an improved noise and physical barrier
This allows for quarry expansion whilst ensuring residents are not unduly negatively impacted

Full text:

I have tried to navigate your website to leave commentary in regards to your proposed quarry development but have found the site suitably difficult to navigate

I would raise the following objections to the proposed application

I am absolutely staggered at how close the quarry site is to my property and the surrounding settlement, why does it need to come so close increasing the risk of both noise and physical pollution to residents. I do not understand why you are seeking to elevate risk to such a level when the current quarry can be expanded directionally away from horstead, or reduced in capacity without exposing residents to an increased level of risk

The word " uncommon " in regards to dust being seen beyond 250m of the site boundary communicates to me that it is will be " common " by definition in that my property will be effected by dust pollution as its sits within the 250m boundary of the development - I do not understand why the scope of the quarry cannot be reduced to in order to limit these risks and not make either noise or dust pollution a critical issue, I am assuming that this a matter of commercial greed by the developer and that you as a council are happy to sacrifice the wellbeing of residents to facilitate this

How will you safeguard people's health to ensure there is no negative respiratory impact ?

I am also concerned for the mental health of all people subjected to the consistent noise of quarry workings so close to people's homes

I have questions regarding your existing facility

How do you currently monitor dust levels from the existing quarry ?
How do you monitor noise levels at the existing quarry ?
What are the agreed permissible limit's for both ?
Have these ever been breached ?
What action has been taken ?
Have these actions been closed out on time and in full ?

Please can you provide me with this information - if there are any gaps in adherence at the existing site then mitigating measures carry no weight at your proposed site and therefore the risk of noise and physical pollution

The existing water tower should be used as the demarcation point for the quarry boundary, this would also enable the natural topography of the land to provide an improved noise and physical barrier
This allows for quarry expansion whilst ensuring residents are not unduly negatively impacted