Object
Preferred Options consultation document
Representation ID: 98261
Received: 26/10/2019
Respondent: Ms & Ms Christine & Perry Sandom & Smith
Number of people: 2
I attach a copy of a letter with reference to the above consultation; I will also send a hard copy in the post.
Re: Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Preferred Options Consultation.
Thank you for your letter dated 13 September 2019. We have read the section of the above document that relates to the land east of Coltishall Road, Buxton (MIN 37). In addition, we have attended the presentation given at the Buxton Parish Council by John Gough, the Director of Planning for Mick George Limited, at which we were given a copy of a Non-Technical Summary relating to the Mayton Wood Quarry Extension.
Most of our initial queries about the quarry, such as the noise levels, light pollution and hours of working, have been answered in the Non-Technical Summary. However, there are some anomalies between this document and the Preferred Options document, which are of concern, as well as a number of unanswered issues.
The Preferred Options document Site Characteristics gives the size of the site as 23.5 hectares, with a proposed reduced extraction area of 17.36 ha. The Frimstone (Mick George Limited) document specifies an Application Area of 33.6 ha and area of mineral extraction of 19.6 ha.
Which of these is correct?
There appears to be some difference in the start dates - the Preferred Options document section on 'What Happens Next' seems to suggest that the Plan will not be adopted until September 2021, and we must assume that the work on the quarry extension should not start until the Plan is adopted. In the same document, in the section MIN37, it states that 'the proposer of the site has given a potential start date of 2019'. How can this be?
Although you seem to ignore the presence of The Heath in the description of the area in MIN37, there are a number properties in addition to those mentioned on the Buxton/Coltishall Road which will be affected by the quarry extension, some of which have wells or bore holes. We are concerned that the presence of the quarry and subsequent landfill may impact on our water supplies. What assurance can you give us?
The proposed new road will join the Coltishall Road at a point where the traffic travels very fast. Is there any possibility of having a speed restriction on this section of road to improve safety. We note, incidentally, MIN37.2 Highway Access states that the number of additional lorry movements would be in the regions of 40 per day, whereas the Non-Technical Summary states a maximum of 74.
I attach a copy of a letter with reference to the above consultation; I will also send a hard copy in the post.
Re: Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Preferred Options Consultation.
Thank you for your letter dated 13 September 2019. We have read the section of the above document that relates to the land east of Coltishall Road, Buxton (MIN 37). In addition, we have attended the presentation given at the Buxton Parish Council by John Gough, the Director of Planning for Mick George Limited, at which we were given a copy of a Non-Technical Summary relating to the Mayton Wood Quarry Extension.
Most of our initial queries about the quarry, such as the noise levels, light pollution and hours of working, have been answered in the Non-Technical Summary. However, there are some anomalies between this document and the Preferred Options document, which are of concern, as well as a number of unanswered issues.
The Preferred Options document Site Characteristics gives the size of the site as 23.5 hectares, with a proposed reduced extraction area of 17.36 ha. The Frimstone (Mick George Limited) document specifies an Application Area of 33.6 ha and area of mineral extraction of 19.6 ha.
Which of these is correct?
There appears to be some difference in the start dates - the Preferred Options document section on 'What Happens Next' seems to suggest that the Plan will not be adopted until September 2021, and we must assume that the work on the quarry extension should not start until the Plan is adopted. In the same document, in the section MIN37, it states that 'the proposer of the site has given a potential start date of 2019'. How can this be?
Although you seem to ignore the presence of The Heath in the description of the area in MIN37, there are a number properties in addition to those mentioned on the Buxton/Coltishall Road which will be affected by the quarry extension, some of which have wells or bore holes. We are concerned that the presence of the quarry and subsequent landfill may impact on our water supplies. What assurance can you give us?
The proposed new road will join the Coltishall Road at a point where the traffic travels very fast. Is there any possibility of having a speed restriction on this section of road to improve safety. We note, incidentally, MIN37.2 Highway Access states that the number of additional lorry movements would be in the regions of 40 per day, whereas the Non-Technical Summary states a maximum of 74.