Object

Representation ID: 99100

Received: 07/11/2022

Respondent: Elspeth Evans

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In response to your letter dated 21 September 2022 it is with great sadness that I find that the area referred to as MIN 25 is again being considered for gravel extraction in spite of not meeting the necessary compliance at the earlier applications.
One of my causes of concern relates to the four listed buildings that are within 250m of the proposed site. According to your own documents the nearest, the Grade II listed White House Farm, is a mere 70m away, whilst the furthest is less than double that, being a Grade II listed Monument to William Salter at 130m distance.
Whereas I feel sure the applicants would try to site the main activities 250 m away from both these areas, the transport they would be utilising, with the recognised increased carbon emission dangers, not to mention the noise pollution, would be inevitably closer. I refer to your paragraph M25.2 Highway Access, in which it is stated that "The site would access Crab Apple Lane and then turn east onto the B1136 Loddon Road to the junction with the A143 Beccles Road,". Mention of this road also raises the question regarding the safety aspect. This crossroads is already a hazard but with the estimated increase of a possible 80 lorries per day the current highways infrastructure does not take into consideration the pedestrian or cycle traffic, including children having to access the local schools. For this application to be granted this junction would have to be altered prior to the proposed increased heavy goods use.
These aforementioned buildings are listed for their historic value and interest. However, there are many dwellings within the locale, the nearest, according to your notes M25.1, is a mere 19m from the site boundary. Your document continues to state "Even without mitigation, adverse dust impacts from sand and gravel sites are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generation activities. The greatest impact will be within 100m of a source, if uncontrolled." Yet in the same section it is stated "Most of these properties are within the settlement of Haddiscoe, which is 55m away."
The proposed site is actually within the boundaries of the village of Haddiscoe, with many residential properties liable to be affected by the dust, noise and carbon emission pollution that would come with such a venture. In the Minerals Strategic Objectives, in particular MS07, which states ''To ensure potential impacts on the amenity of those people living in proximity to minerals developments are effectively controlled, minimised and mitigated to acceptable levels." London controls vehicular carbon emissions, particularly those from diesel vehicles, by severe fines. Is this what is to be included as part of the mitigation process for those residents so afflicted?
Finally, my concerns also include the so-called sweetener that Breedon were proposing (at the summer 2022 consultation session at Haddiscoe village hall), in the subsequent landscaping of the then derelict site, in a decade. I feel this would be far too difficult to enforce after the site were vacated and instead propose that should this or future applications be successful, the applicants be required to pay an annual tithe to the village, that the current residents might put to improvements for the benefit of the village (not least of which would be the Grade I listed church of Saint Mary, one of the nearest properties that would be affected by this proposal.)
I look forward to common decency prevailing in this matter and that this application be seen for what it is: viz the enhancement to the proposers of this application (who are not local – being based in Leicestershire), at the cost of inconvenience and endangered health of the residents of this small Norfolk village, which is minutes away from access to the famous Norfolk Broads. I trust these comments will be seen for their honesty and that this application be declined.