Please find enclosed the comments and objections of Totten hill Parish Council to the proposal of AOS J and I areas of search and to MIN74, 77 and 206, as requested under the Preferred Options Consultation on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan (M&WLP).

ASO J and AOS I Land to the east of Tottenhill.
OBJECTION
Reasons for objection.
AOSJ J.1 Tottenhill and Wormegay school is close to this site, the prevailing wind blows directly onto the school this could course the children to have breathing and lung problems in the future through dust and pollution blowing from the site onto the school. The noise from machinery coursing distraction in the classroom. This site would have a visual impact on the area from the site access along the A134 and from A134 to Tottenhill. There would be a visual impact along Deals Lane overlooking the site.
J.2 State access from the site could be via the southern track unto A134 subject to junction improvements, a dedicated access could be created to the A134 or the A10 with junction improvements. If the junction unto the A134 is used It will course traffic to back up either side of the junction coursing further congestion and accidents, this road is used by heavy lorry's going to and from the Sugar Beet Factory. Going via the A134 it will be taking traffic by the school junction coursing more risk of accidents happening involving parents and children.
Site traffic would go to the A134 and A10 roundabout, at the same time there would be site traffic from the quarry plant and safari park entering the Roundabout coursing more congestion and frustration to motorist.
AOS I Site traffic going via the junction onto the A10 at Thieves Bridge turning right and going through the accident black spot at the junction to Tottenhill and Watlington and onto the roundabout joining the A134 coursing the same situation as stated above.
A footpath going from Deals Lane and up to the A134 to Tottenhill church, This footpath is running through the south side of the proposed site and will be taken if put forward.
Cutting down a complete fir wood losing all the wild life and habitat, this is a 100 year old wood.
With these two sites small hamlet of Tottenhill will be surrounded with quarries.

Proposed site MIN 74 - OBJECTION
Reasons for objecting.
M74.1 It states adverse dust impacts are uncommon beyond 250m the nearest property Is within 77m. The impact on the residents will be dust/ noise/pollution from machinery. M74.16 States Sand and gravel will be transported by existing conveyor This means transporting materials to the
conveyor along the back of all the Properties causing more disturbance pollution noise and dust. The foundations to these properties are minimal and close to the surface, vulnerable to subsidence, due to vibration and the water table dropping which is more noticeable in all of Tottenhill This last few years with all the quarrying going on in the area.
A quarry on this site would have an unacceptable impact to the area, the Tottenhill Row residents and residents along the A10 overlooking the site. Bunding would be intrusive to this conservation area.
Traffic going unto the roundabout A10 and A134 plus the private companies Collecting sand and gravel, 80 passes a day to and from safari park all coursing more congestion to these already over loaded roads impacting on the residents and all in the surrounding area who use these roads. Tottenhill Row is a conservation area an area of natural beauty this site would be intrusive. Quarrying in Tottenhill has been going on for a 100years or more the first planning application in the 1990s, 60 years disturbance and disruption in the area.
Taking Arable land out of the food chain which is needed more than ever.
Surly NCC you can see why Tottenhill and its residents have had enough and stop this being put forward.

PROPOSED Site Min77 - OBJECTION
Reasons for objection
There are broad leave trees in this wood over 100+years old Cutting this wood down would devastate the area killing or moving all wildlife and habitat. Completely changing the landscape, Ecological impact would be great.
When Min76 came up for planning we asked if the conveyor belt could be moved To the north side of Watlington Road to be further away from the residents at Tottenhill Row the answer was no, one of the main reasons it would involve cutting down trees which were mainly saplings, now it is convenient to cut down a mature wood. In this case the environment and conservation has conveniently been forgot.
We need to keep and maintain all the woodlands to help check pollution. Helping the small birds which are disappearing in the area, and the wildlife.
MIN77.16 It states sand and gravel will be transported to the existing processing plant by conveyor, the conveyor has been moved to Min76 the culvert under the road to the processing plant has been granted planning permission for-trafficking visitors to the Safari Park. Will this mean traffic to the Safari Park will go by road causing more congestion? 40 vehicles a day= 80 passes on the roads a day.
There is no mention how the site will be cleared and managed when cutting and clearing the trees, how hardwood and mature trees will be transported off site Which road and junction will be used. This means very large vehicles using the roads at the same time as vehicles from the plant site and safari park causing congestion on the roads.
M77.19 States the site is proposed to be restored to nature conservation comprising a mixture of ponds. wet woodland, and wet grass land etc., Combined with the vast area of open water we already have in Tottenhill we will lose even more water to open water evaporation, ltis stressed we should save all the water we can, in the last few years with all the quarrying the
whole area is drying out dropping the water table. The past planning applications for MIN 75 76 the PC has asked for an open water evaporation report. Not seen one to date. Tottenhill is being surrounded with quarries which are being left open and causing loss of water through evaporation and are intrusive to the landscape. If this site is put forward Tottenhill has another Minimum of thirteen years of traffic/pollution/noise/and disruption on top of the 60 years we have already had, we have given our fair share of aggregates to Norfolk and surrounding counties. Tottenhill and the residence say Enough Is Enough.

PROPOSED MIN 206
OBJECTION
Reasons for objecting
The nearest residents are well within the impact area of dust/ noise
Pollution and vibration, Running alongside Watlington road and the A10
This could course subsidence to properties and the A10
There will be a visual impact from the A10 and the Watlington road.
Whichever way you go from Tottenhill to Watlington all you can see is intrusive and unsightly earth bunds, screening this site will add even more.
M206.8 There are public footpaths shown on the map going from the Al0 through to Tottenhill Row on this site. Planning permission has been granted on the site for car parking to the safari park, where will this parking be located?
M206.12 It states CWS 385 Tottenhill Village Green it is an area of moderately species rich neutral grassland containing three small ponds which seasonally dry. These ponds very really dried up until the last Two to three years of intensive quarrying coursing the water table to drop and the whole area drying out.
This site will put more traffic on the roads more pollution/noise dust.
Affecting the water table even more, And coursing the spring at Tottenhill Row conservation area to stop running and feeding the spring pit.
Tottenhill is virtually surrounded in old and recent quarries left open and not landscaped as planning permission granted Over 60 years of quarrying, Tottenhill has had Enough.
We are asking NCC not to put this site forward for review.
In the EXTRACTS NORFOLK MINERALS LOCAL PLAN policies.
It shows 3 and four reasons for each one of the sites Min74 77 and 206 that NCC should reject putting these sites forward for review.