We are writing in response to your document Re. Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local plan: preferred Options, relating to the proposed quarry on the land east of the Coltishall Road. Firstly, we have some concerns as to the safety of the underground water. We note that you state that the excavations [not deep?], and back filling will not have a detrimental affect on these underground waters but we have concerns' that water will naturally seep through the ground to great depths. You state that only 'inert materials' will be used as back fill but even these can contain toxic materials, especially if this back fill contains old mortar from brick rubble. We run a Brewery from our premises which relies soley on water from a bore-hole. If the water were to be polluted a short way along the flow, back pollution may be caused, and there are concerns that this could have an adverse effect on the quality of our products. Can you assure us that it is impossible for any such pollution to occur?
Secondly, there seems to be a discrepancy between the area to be quarried and also the number of lorry movements. In MIN37.2 it says that the number of movements would be around forty per day, yet in the Non Technical Summary it is said to be up to seventy four movements. A big difference even if these are estimated figures, even allowing for each lorry counting twice as an in and out movement. It seems strange too, that whilst permission seems to be certain to be granted for the quarry, with up to seventy four movements per day, entering and exiting from the Coltishall Road, Highways have objections to us, only a few hundred yards down the road, from operating a Caravan Club registered campsite, with probably a maximum on average of one movement per day, or less, on what is already an existing driveway.
There also seems to be another discrepancy on the actual size of land to be excavated; in the Preferred Options it says that the site will cover twenty three point five hectares, with an extraction area of seventeen point three six hectares; yet in the Frimstone document that we believe was presented to Buxton Parish Council, the Application Area is shown as thirty three point six hectares with an extraction area of nineteen point six hectares. We suspect that this anomaly will not make too much difference to us, or the application, but for a project such as this surely the paperwork and plans should 'add up.' It also leaves us wondering what other changes are in the offing that we non-technical people will perhaps miss, and then suffer for with 'a done deal.'
We note too, that there are two separate start dates; one for 2019, the other for 2021, and this only for the adoption of the plan. If the 2019 date is correct then it would appear that all permissions and planning applications have already been approved. If this is so, then why this consultation?
On a final note, we have been surprised that neighbours living on The Heath have not been contacted about this; surely they too are within the two hundred and fifty metres and should have a voice about the development.