Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98447

Received: 29/10/2019

Respondent: Ms C Downes

Representation Summary:

MIN 74
I wish to object to the inclusion of Min 74 on the Mineral and waste local plan due to extreme proximity of the site to the residents of properties on Tottenhill Row AND Conservation Area. The site would cause the following problems;
UNACEPTABLE LEVELS OF NOISE.
Residents of Tottenhill Row have already been forced to endure extreme levels of noise generated by heavy plant working from the West at MIN 75 and also MIN 76 located to the South West. (I was under the impression that work was not supposed to start on MIN 76 until MIN 75 was completed but we have had an unbearable amount of noise generated by large plant from the simultaneous working of both sites over the summer months which has been unsufferable whilst trying to spend time outside)
VISUAL
The site could not be adequately screened from the residents properties, the Conservation area and also the Public Highway.
DUST
As with the other sites, unacceptable levels of dust would be created which would impact residents
SUBSIDENCE TO PROPERTIES
Potential changes to the water table / settlement with extensive quarrying surrounding Tottenhill Row. Presumably De-watering would need to take place which could add to potential problems? (We understand that Damage to property is not a material planning consideration but Subsidence is)
IMPACT TO WILDLIFE
Barn Owls, Roe Deer and Muntjac are regularly seen from the road where the site would be located
ECOLOGY
There are currently 15 natural small ponds in the immediate location, Ecology surveys have shown some to have "Good" to "Excellent" chances to support Great Crested Newts and a possibility to support Otters. The Spring that feeds the pond known as "Spring pit" on Tottenhill Row stopped flowing this year for the first time in living memory (it seems quite coincidental after the deep excavations and creation of a huge de-watering pond a few metres away on MIN 76. The spring and pond were supposedly to be monitored when MIN 76 was approved as a planning condition but it would appear that it wasn't acted on)
HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL
The area is important on both counts. Sample survey trenches do not survey the whole site
THE CULMANATIVE EFFECT OF NUMEROUS EXCAVATED SITES
The character of the local landscape is being radically changed. The area does not need yet more "dead" siltwater pits that do not support or encourage biodiversity and there are already extensive areas of water for wildfowl.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Residents have a right to the enjoyment of Property. The unacceptable impact of Noise and dust impair the enjoyment of residents properties outside space.
MIN 74 has been deemed as unacceptable previously and so should be removed from the local plan as it is literally on the doorstep of Tottenhill Row (which is a conservation Area)

Finally with regard to Planning policy, I would like to add that the notification of residents within a 250 metre radius of proposed sites is not a large enough radius. Residents of Tottenhill Row have been badly affected by noise from MIN 76 as well as MIN 75. The noise created over the last summer from MIN 75 has been particularly bad, the eastern end of Tottenhill Row is well over 900 metres from MIN 75. People lead busy lives and it is not enough to rely on residents in areas potentially affected areas seeing a very small notice on a telegraph pole whilst driving (and not everyone has access to the internet and facebook to get notifications of planning matters making the process discriminatory as it stands.) There have also been numerous occasions when residents even within the 250 radius have not received notifications of planning applications.
Also, If the number of comments and opinions received in an area are taken into account in any descision making, in the interest of openess, it has to be noted that 5 of 17 properties in the immediate area potentially affected are (so we understand) occupied by tenants of the landowner. (with whom we hold no personal grievance and tenants are obviously free to form their own opinions but we do feel that it should be made apparent)

Full text:

MIN 74
I wish to object to the inclusion of Min 74 on the Mineral and waste local plan due to extreme proximity of the site to the residents of properties on Tottenhill Row AND Conservation Area. The site would cause the following problems;
UNACEPTABLE LEVELS OF NOISE.
Residents of Tottenhill Row have already been forced to endure extreme levels of noise generated by heavy plant working from the West at MIN 75 and also MIN 76 located to the South West. (I was under the impression that work was not supposed to start on MIN 76 until MIN 75 was completed but we have had an unbearable amount of noise generated by large plant from the simultaneous working of both sites over the summer months which has been unsufferable whilst trying to spend time outside)
VISUAL
The site could not be adequately screened from the residents properties, the Conservation area and also the Public Highway.
DUST
As with the other sites, unacceptable levels of dust would be created which would impact residents
SUBSIDENCE TO PROPERTIES
Potential changes to the water table / settlement with extensive quarrying surrounding Tottenhill Row. Presumably De-watering would need to take place which could add to potential problems? (We understand that Damage to property is not a material planning consideration but Subsidence is)
IMPACT TO WILDLIFE
Barn Owls, Roe Deer and Muntjac are regularly seen from the road where the site would be located
ECOLOGY
There are currently 15 natural small ponds in the immediate location, Ecology surveys have shown some to have "Good" to "Excellent" chances to support Great Crested Newts and a possibility to support Otters. The Spring that feeds the pond known as "Spring pit" on
possibility to support Otters. The Spring that feeds the pond known as "Spring pit" on Tottenhill Row stopped flowing this year for the first time in living memory (it seems quite coincidental after the deep excavations and creation of a huge de-watering pond a few metres away on MIN 76. The spring and pond were supposedly to be monitored when MIN 76 was approved as a planning condition but it would appear that it wasn't acted on)
HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL
The area is important on both counts. Sample survey trenches do not survey the whole site
THE CULMANATIVE EFFECT OF NUMEROUS EXCAVATED SITES
The character of the local landscape is being radically changed. The area does not need yet more "dead" siltwater pits that do not support or encourage biodiversity and there are already extensive areas of water for wildfowl.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Residents have a right to the enjoyment of Property. The unacceptable impact of Noise and dust impair the enjoyment of residents properties outside space.
MIN 74 has been deemed as unacceptable previously and so should be removed from the local plan as it is literally on the doorstep of Tottenhill Row (which is a conservation Area)
MIN 206
I would also like to object to the inclusion of MIN 206 on the M&WLP for all the same reasons as listed above. Although the site is not as visible from Tottenhill Row it is visible from the A10 highway. The site has also been granted approval for a wildlife conservation park, surely it can't be both?
MIN 77
I would like to object to the inclusion of MIN 77 on the M&WLP.
In Addition to the points above it is an area of ancient deciduous woodland that would be destroyed which surely contradicts environmental policies.
Finally with regard to Planning policy, I would like to add that the notification of residents within a 250 metre radius of proposed sites is not a large enough radius. Residents of Tottenhill Row have been badly affected by noise from MIN 76 as well as MIN 75. The noise created over the last summer from MIN 75 has been particularly bad, the eastern end of Tottenhill Row is well over 900 metres from MIN 75. People lead busy lives and it is not enough to rely on residents in areas potentially affected areas seeing a very small notice on a telegraph pole whilst driving (and not everyone has access to the internet and facebook to get notifications of planning matters making the process discriminatory as it
stands.) There have also been numerous occasions when residents even within the 250 radius have not received notifications of planning applications.
Also, If the number of comments and opinions received in an area are taken into account in any descision making, in the interest of openess, it has to be noted that 5 of 17 properties in the immediate area potentially affected are (so we understand) occupied by tenants of the landowner. (with whom we hold no personal grievance and tenants are obviously free to form their own opinions but we do feel that it should be made apparent)