Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98267

Received: 26/10/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Playford

Representation Summary:

Ref. Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan:Preferred Options Consultation Your ref:
M&WLPPO2019
I refer to your consultation letter dated 13th September 2019 regarding the above preferred Options consultation.I wish to raise objection to the proposed mineral extraction site MIN 12 land north of Chapel Lane,Beetly identified on the Breckland Sites "Map of proposed sites Beetly (Min 08; Min 12; Min13; Min 51).The following are the key salient points of objection:
1.IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The proposed use of the site for sand and gravel extraction for an estimated 80,000 tonnes per annum would result in significant adverse impacts in terms of noise and dust as well as resulting in significant impacts on air quality of which no assessment has been made.Given the relatively close proximity of my property within 200m to the site, it is inevitable that my property will be adversely impacted by dust and noise even with any proposed mitigation measures and would adversely impact on my quality of life.The proposal would result in the breach of my Human Rights Act 1988.Protocal 1,Article 1 your right to enjoy your property peacefully .Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the principles of international law.No assessment has been made or referred to in the assessment characteristics of this site ,regarding the Human Rights implications.The consultation is considered flawed as no regard or assessment has been made and appropriate legal action will be persued.
The amenity impacts on the residential properties within 250m of the proposed site would be significant and demonstrably effect my quality of life as well as those of other immediate residents.
2. IMPACT ON CHARCTER AND APPERANCE OF AREA
The proposal would result in a significant visual intrusion within the landscape given the size of the site for mineral extraction.Given the open nature of the site with few landscape features apart from boundary hedgerows.The proposal would result in demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area.
3.IMPACT ON HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
The proposal would also adversely impact on the setting and character and appearance of the Grade 1 Church of at Mary Magdalen and listed buildings within the vicinity.The proposed use of the site for mineral extraction would not comply with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)Act and would adversely impact on their character and setting. Historic England have not been consulted and are a statutory consultee regarding any impact on the setting of Grade I Listed buildings.Failure to comply with this would be grounds for judicial review as due regard would not have been had to these Heritage Assets.These assessments need to be carried out first.
4.HIGHWAYS
The proposed use of the site for gravel extraction would result in significant traffic generation it is noted an estimated 30 HGV movements in and out per day.No Traffic Impact Assessment has been provided to justify the acceptability of the use of the site for this purpose.The surrounding road network is considered in appropriate for the additional traffic movement that would be generated.
5.ECOLOGY
The proposal would have an adverse impact on the ecology of the site. Please advise whether an appropriate Habitats Regulation Assesment ( HRA) has been carried out for the site as a competent authority.
The site is also know to contain Badger Sets which are protected under the protection of Badgers Act 1992.The proposed use of the site for mineral extraction would destroy these protected habitats. Again no assessment has been undertaken regarding these matters.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I strongly object to the use of this site for mineral extraction for the reasons set out above. Please keep me informed

Full text:

Ref. Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan:Preferred Options Consultation Your ref:
M&WLPPO2019
I refer to your consultation letter dated 13th September 2019 regarding the above preferred Options consultation.I wish to raise objection to the proposed mineral extraction site MIN 12 land north of Chapel Lane,Beetly identified on the Breckland Sites "Map of proposed sites Beetly (Min 08; Min 12; Min13; Min 51).The following are the key salient points of objection:
1.IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The proposed use of the site for sand and gravel extraction for an estimated 80,000 tonnes per annum would result in significant adverse impacts in terms of noise and dust as well as resulting in significant impacts on air quality of which no assessment has been made.Given the relatively close proximity of my property within 200m to the site, it is inevitable that my property will be adversely impacted by dust and noise even with any proposed mitigation measures and would adversely impact on my quality of life.The proposal would result in the breach of my Human Rights Act 1988.Protocal 1,Article 1 your right to enjoy your property peacefully .Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the principles of international law.No assessment has been made or referred to in the assessment characteristics of this site ,regarding the Human Rights implications.The consultation is considered flawed as no regard or assessment has been made and appropriate legal action will be persued.
The amenity impacts on the residential properties within 250m of the proposed site would be significant and demonstrably effect my quality of life as well as those of other immediate residents.
2. IMPACT ON CHARCTER AND APPERANCE OF AREA
The proposal would result in a significant visual intrusion within the landscape given the size of the site for mineral extraction.Given the open nature of the site with few landscape features apart from boundary hedgerows.The proposal would result in demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area.
3.IMPACT ON HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
The proposal would also adversely impact on the setting and character and appearance of the Grade 1 Church of at Mary Magdalen and listed buildings within the vicinity.The proposed use of the site for mineral extraction would not comply with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)Act and would adversely impact on their character and setting. Historic England have not been consulted and are a statutory consultee regarding any impact on the setting of Grade I Listed buildings.Failure to comply with this would be grounds for judicial review as due regard would not have been had to these Heritage Assets.These assessments need to be carried out first.
4.HIGHWAYS
The proposed use of the site for gravel extraction would result in significant traffic generation it is noted an estimated 30 HGV movements in and out per day.No Traffic Impact Assessment has been provided to justify the acceptability of the use of the site for this purpose.The surrounding road network is considered in appropriate for the additional traffic movement that would be generated.
5.ECOLOGY
The proposal would have an adverse impact on the ecology of the site. Please advise whether an appropriate Habitats Regulation Assesment ( HRA) has been carried out for the site as a competent authority.
The site is also know to contain Badger Sets which are protected under the protection of Badgers Act 1992.The proposed use of the site for mineral extraction would destroy these protected habitats. Again no assessment has been undertaken regarding these matters.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I strongly object to the use of this site for mineral extraction for the reasons set out above. Please keep me informed