Question 57: Proposed site MIN 38 (Waveney Forest, Fritton)

Object

Representation ID: 91737

Received: 13/07/2018

Respondent: Mr & Mrs C & C Palmer

Number of people: 2

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.
Comments: We do not want all this disruption in our lovely villages. Please object to these proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 91738

Received: 12/07/2018

Respondent: Mrs H Carruthers

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

Object

Representation ID: 91739

Received: 12/07/2018

Respondent: Mr & Mrs P & D Adams

Number of people: 2

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

Object

Representation ID: 91740

Received: 12/07/2018

Respondent: Mr A Flynn

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: Apart from all the environmental losses we already have enough dust pollution from natural farming.

Object

Representation ID: 91741

Received: 12/07/2018

Respondent: Ms F Cowan

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

Object

Representation ID: 91742

Received: 11/07/2018

Respondent: Ms L Colman

I am emailing you with regards to the application made by Brett's Aggregates to turn Fritton Woods into a sand and gravel extraction site.

I am in strong opposition to this proposal for a number of reasons.

As a qualified counsellor a large part of my passion is encouraging people to spend more time in natural spaces, especially in woodlands and forests. There is a large amount of growing research which shows both psychological and physical benefits of being in the presence of trees. Some of these benefits are lowered blood pressure and stress hormones and improved immune system.

I have written a blog post about my findings here; http://ferngreenwellness.co.uk/why-being-in-nature-helps-you-feel-well/

We are all aware of the growing amount of air pollution we face as a Country. This seems like a backwards move as we should be preserving and increasing the amount of woodlands we have.

On top of all of the above there is the wildlife that calls Fritton Woods their home, we wouldn't be able to fully appreciate the numbers of beings that are part of the ecosystem.

To lose this woodland would be devastating to the people and wildlife that benefit from spending much needed time there.

I urge you, or whoever is associated with the decision making process to stop and think about the serious implications of this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 91743

Received: 16/07/2018

Respondent: Mr Keith Nunn

I agree with the initial conclusion because my own uncle Russell Leech built the hides in the forest during the WW2. He is now deceased but told us of his activities in charge of the resistance in the woods and of the many adventures they had in practicing with the main army guarding the bridges. His men were the secret army and briefed to hide and come out to attack the invading German troops from behind. These hides and some, yet to be found, should be protected and eventually restored for future generations. There can be very few such precious archives left now in the country.
Quite apart from these historic reasons there are numerous reasons why quarrying activities should be prevented in these woods. I have already sent details of the possible effect of dust and carbon particulates being set down upon New road by air turbulence after being ionized by the HT wires overhead. Our medical expert claimed that these would stick deep into the lungs. We have a dossier of at least twelve people in New Road alone suffering from asthma or bronchical troubles. Woodland tree screening like this will not work due to air turbulence.
The loss of the main woodland amenity for Gt Yarmouth and Lowestoft and the biodiversity effected is surprising that this could ever be contemplated. All this in a National Park area!
We are urged to plant more trees for sequestration not to remove them ,even commercial woodland must be sustained by replanting in numbers.
European protected species live in the lower land and will need to be protected from toxic run off.
The possible breach of the aquifer supplying Fritton lake drinking water should not be risked.
The proposed lorry route for up to 50 lorries per day is too much for the already overcrowded A143. At peak times now there are long hold ups. NCC highways should monitor the present situation before sanctioning further chaos.
Fire, the forest has always been a fire hazard. Sparks from vehicles or machinery would be a danger in a tinder dry period. Four fires in four days one week and we average over 30 per year as the undergrowth is very difficult to extinguish once it starts.

The Broads Authority must speak up to protect its National Park status and protect the biodiversity in the area.
Article 1 of The Human Rights act does ensure our right to enjoy the peace and tranquility in our own homes and this plan would change all that.
We have not bothered with a petition this time over 20,000 joined us in opposition last time. Surely our council officers can appreciate that the developers are chasing a lost cause.

Object

Representation ID: 91744

Received: 11/07/2018

Respondent: Ms V Arger

I grew up visiting Waveney Forest regularly. Like many people this was a place of refuge for me. But this is not the only reason I am asking you to save our forest.

With climate change and environmental damage rising quickly, we need to look at saving our green spaces. Please consider the environmental impact this will have and how many species of animals this will displace and kill. We are losing our natural areas at an alarming rate.Please do not let this become one of many.

This is a beloved area for many, many people and it is very distressing knowing how easily it can be lost. Please consider the wider public good. Far too often the public are not listened to, please take this opportunity to let us have our voice. I really hope you take this opportunity to reconsider and take all objections into account.

Object

Representation ID: 91745

Received: 11/07/2018

Respondent: Ms T Oldham

Number of people: 4

I am writing to you to express my devastation at the possibility that Waveney Forrest (Fritton Woods) is under consideration for development as an aggregate pit. I appreciate that our ever expanding society requires resources, and the 'not on my back door' argument solves nothing, but I really cannot express enough how strongly I feel this would be a mistake. I am lucky enough to live very close to this wonderful wildlife habitat and frequently take my children to the woods. I see how many people also enjoy this space on a regular basis.

Also for consideration is the impact on wildlife in the area, the local heritage of the army camp and old train line, and the increased traffic on the already dangerous A143. I would like to ask that you consider these points when making your decision for a site.

Object

Representation ID: 91746

Received: 16/07/2018

Respondent: Mr J Thompson

It has come to my attention that "Fritton Woods" is at risk and could be no more, and I feel obligated to say I am utterly disgusted by this motion.

I love my visits to that Woods and the connection to nature it gives, especially taking children and opening their eyes to the beauty of nature as it is one of the only wooded places in the area that can be visited - but you can see their eyes open up. Taking away these trees would destroy not only a truly beautiful area and all the wildlife, animals and insects that live there, but also the spirits of the people who love to visit and the wonder in those children's eyes when they see and explore.

I implore you to put a stop to the destruction of the woods and instead protect the land, trees, wildlife, and public access.

Object

Representation ID: 91748

Received: 16/07/2018

Respondent: Mr & Ms P & P McRuvie & Saywell

Number of people: 2

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

Object

Representation ID: 91749

Received: 16/07/2018

Respondent: Mr & Mrs H & K Smith

Number of people: 2

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

Object

Representation ID: 91750

Received: 16/07/2018

Respondent: MR & Mrs J & C Collins

Number of people: 2

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.
Leave our woods alone.

Object

Representation ID: 91751

Received: 16/07/2018

Respondent: Mrs J V Child

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.
I fully agree with all the objections raised by the Action Group:
* Loss of woodland amenity for Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft.
* Noise and dust producing health worries and property blight.
* Loss of forest and carbon footprint imbalance.
* The suggested tree screens will not work due to turbulence and down draughts over the forest.
* See our studies that indicate that the trees add to the problem visiting the dust upon the village rather than afford any protection.
* We have world renowned expert opinion warning of particulate pollution. The close proximity of the residential area with the inconvenience of the dreadful dust effects on property and health only metres from New Road is nothing short of tragedy. The tree screen there is sparse. Tree turbulence will beset the dust particles onto New Road and ionization of particles by the high tension cables that cross the entire area, these bypass the body's natural defences and stick in the lungs. Even horses at Redwings might be vulnerable on windy days. Increasing public awareness of the safe limits for dust PM 2.5s should effectively limit the proposed mineral activities here. Asthma and bronchial sufferers in the villages (some in New Road0 would be concerned. Proposed access route is upwind and adjoining the children's New Road playground.
* Biodiversity loss throughout the forest. Run off concern for European protected eels and whorl snails on lower land.
* Unique archaeology loss of the WW2 resistance hides, and wartime effects concealed throughout the forest, not to mention the unexploded ordinance.
* Water... effect of the development of Fritton Lake municipal water supply and local wells whose supply comes from many miles north and risk of any breach of the artesian well cap could have an adverse effect.
* Desecration of the Broads Authority National Park.
* Highways ... the new proposed access road for up to 50 lorries per day would spoil the lovely overhead tree canopy twixt our villages to join an already overloaded and dangerous A143.
* Traffic on the A146 often can't access the A143 without considerable delay. The Fritton corner is already hazardous if two heavy vehicles have to pass on opposite sides.
* Noise ... 150m metres is insufficient to be a noise barrier. We have complete tranquillity in the forest. Previous applications made no mention of the noisy grading activities from the site machinery at all.
* Security lights compound would cause light pollution of the area.
* Fire ... the forest has already been a fire hazard, sparks from the vehicles or machinery would be a danger in a tinder dry period. Four fires in four days one week, we average over 30, per year. The Broads Authority must protect their National Park a mineral pit plus drag lines and commercial machinery could affect the view from the broads. Fritton Lake Estate and Caldecott Hall are both trying to promote their holiday lodges
* Our parish council has resisted noise and light pollution for 30 years separating us from great Yarmouth. This would destroy our village tranquillity as we know it.
* The lower end to the west floods more readily that is suggested. The Staithe area has no embankment protection.
* Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act ensure that we have the right for quiet enjoyment of our homes. Planning blight .... House values down, virtually nothing sold at all in the area during the previous application years.
* Suggested replacement wetlands will go stagnant, breed mosquitos and encourage flooding.
* Forestry Commission is asking for more trees to sequestrate carbon, not less.
* Over 20,000 signed our petition previously.

Object

Representation ID: 91752

Received: 12/07/2018

Respondent: Mr K Leggett

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.
I fully agree with all the objections raised by the Action Group:
* Loss of woodland amenity for Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft.
* Noise and dust producing health worries and property blight.
* Loss of forest and carbon footprint imbalance.
* The suggested tree screens will not work due to turbulence and down draughts over the forest.
* See our studies that indicate that the trees add to the problem visiting the dust upon the village rather than afford any protection.
* We have world renowned expert opinion warning of particulate pollution. The close proximity of the residential area with the inconvenience of the dreadful dust effects on property and health only metres from New Road is nothing short of tragedy. The tree screen there is sparse. Tree turbulence will beset the dust particles onto New Road and ionization of particles by the high tension cables that cross the entire area, these bypass the body's natural defences and stick in the lungs. Even horses at Redwings might be vulnerable on windy days. Increasing public awareness of the safe limits for dust PM 2.5s should effectively limit the proposed mineral activities here. Asthma and bronchial sufferers in the villages (some in New Road0 would be concerned. Proposed access route is upwind and adjoining the children's New Road playground.
* Biodiversity loss throughout the forest. Run off concern for European protected eels and whorl snails on lower land.
* Unique archaeology loss of the WW2 resistance hides, and wartime effects concealed throughout the forest, not to mention the unexploded ordinance.
* Water... effect of the development of Fritton Lake municipal water supply and local wells whose supply comes from many miles north and risk of any breach of the artesian well cap could have an adverse effect.
* Desecration of the Broads Authority National Park.
* Highways ... the new proposed access road for up to 50 lorries per day would spoil the lovely overhead tree canopy twixt our villages to join an already overloaded and dangerous A143.
* Traffic on the A146 often can't access the A143 without considerable delay. The Fritton corner is already hazardous if two heavy vehicles have to pass on opposite sides.
* Noise ... 150m metres is insufficient to be a noise barrier. We have complete tranquillity in the forest. Previous applications made no mention of the noisy grading activities from the site machinery at all.
* Security lights compound would cause light pollution of the area.
* Fire ... the forest has already been a fire hazard, sparks from the vehicles or machinery would be a danger in a tinder dry period. Four fires in four days one week, we average over 30, per year. The Broads Authority must protect their National Park a mineral pit plus drag lines and commercial machinery could affect the view from the broads. Fritton Lake Estate and Caldecott Hall are both trying to promote their holiday lodges
* Our parish council has resisted noise and light pollution for 30 years separating us from great Yarmouth. This would destroy our village tranquillity as we know it.
* The lower end to the west floods more readily that is suggested. The Staithe area has no embankment protection.
* Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act ensure that we have the right for quiet enjoyment of our homes. Planning blight .... House values down, virtually nothing sold at all in the area during the previous application years.
* Suggested replacement wetlands will go stagnant, breed mosquitos and encourage flooding.
* Forestry Commission is asking for more trees to sequestrate carbon, not less.
* Over 20,000 signed our petition previously.

Object

Representation ID: 91753

Received: 12/07/2018

Respondent: Ms Ann Wilby

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.
I raise every objection as stated on this leaflet:
* Loss of woodland amenity for Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft.
* Noise and dust producing health worries and property blight.
* Loss of forest and carbon footprint imbalance.
* The suggested tree screens will not work due to turbulence and down draughts over the forest.
* See our studies that indicate that the trees add to the problem visiting the dust upon the village rather than afford any protection.
* We have world renowned expert opinion warning of particulate pollution. The close proximity of the residential area with the inconvenience of the dreadful dust effects on property and health only metres from New Road is nothing short of tragedy. The tree screen there is sparse. Tree turbulence will beset the dust particles onto New Road and ionization of particles by the high tension cables that cross the entire area, these bypass the body's natural defences and stick in the lungs. Even horses at Redwings might be vulnerable on windy days. Increasing public awareness of the safe limits for dust PM 2.5s should effectively limit the proposed mineral activities here. Asthma and bronchial sufferers in the villages (some in New Road0 would be concerned. Proposed access route is upwind and adjoining the children's New Road playground.
* Biodiversity loss throughout the forest. Run off concern for European protected eels and whorl snails on lower land.
* Unique archaeology loss of the WW2 resistance hides, and wartime effects concealed throughout the forest, not to mention the unexploded ordinance.
* Water... effect of the development of Fritton Lake municipal water supply and local wells whose supply comes from many miles north and risk of any breach of the artesian well cap could have an adverse effect.
* Desecration of the Broads Authority National Park.
* Highways ... the new proposed access road for up to 50 lorries per day would spoil the lovely overhead tree canopy twixt our villages to join an already overloaded and dangerous A143.
* Traffic on the A146 often can't access the A143 without considerable delay. The Fritton corner is already hazardous if two heavy vehicles have to pass on opposite sides.
* Noise ... 150m metres is insufficient to be a noise barrier. We have complete tranquillity in the forest. Previous applications made no mention of the noisy grading activities from the site machinery at all.
* Security lights compound would cause light pollution of the area.
* Fire ... the forest has already been a fire hazard, sparks from the vehicles or machinery would be a danger in a tinder dry period. Four fires in four days one week, we average over 30, per year. The Broads Authority must protect their National Park a mineral pit plus drag lines and commercial machinery could affect the view from the broads. Fritton Lake Estate and Caldecott Hall are both trying to promote their holiday lodges
* Our parish council has resisted noise and light pollution for 30 years separating us from great Yarmouth. This would destroy our village tranquillity as we know it.
* The lower end to the west floods more readily that is suggested. The Staithe area has no embankment protection.
* Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act ensure that we have the right for quiet enjoyment of our homes. Planning blight .... House values down, virtually nothing sold at all in the area during the previous application years.
* Suggested replacement wetlands will go stagnant, breed mosquitos and encourage flooding.
* Forestry Commission is asking for more trees to sequestrate carbon, not less.
* Over 20,000 signed our petition previously.

Object

Representation ID: 91754

Received: 17/07/2018

Respondent: J Swainson

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

Object

Representation ID: 91755

Received: 17/07/2018

Respondent: Mr & Mrs T & J Beales

Number of people: 2

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: Please do not destroy our village tranquillity and clean air!

Object

Representation ID: 91756

Received: 17/07/2018

Respondent: Mrs V Mansfield

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: Please leave our woodlands alone.

Object

Representation ID: 91757

Received: 17/07/2018

Respondent: Mr & Mrs J & J Mills

Number of people: 2

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: We purchased our home because we love the peace and tranquillity. The woodlands should remain as woodlands. We strongly disagree with any further removal of trees.

Object

Representation ID: 91759

Received: 17/07/2018

Respondent: Mr J Wedon

Please treat this email as my formal objection to the proposed quarry on the site of Fritton Woods / Waveney Forest.

This is a site of natural beauty - the trees have already had a major chop several years ago which they are only now recovering from.

It seems more and more land is being occupied and developed on and this area should be protected. The fields near Bradwell and belton are being built on by more houses and this surely warrants more areas of nature. The amount of animals that have lost their habitat due to the Bradwell development is unthinking - to put a quarry in this site is a despicable thought. All those trees, all those animals, all of mother natures doing. I object most profusely to the quarry.

Object

Representation ID: 91760

Received: 18/07/2018

Respondent: Mr Chris Dearmun

I am agreeing to the NCC's recommendation to reject Site MIN38 as a site for mineral extraction.
One of the many good reasons not to allocate this site is that, even with Brett's original proposal having been reduced in size, the extraction operations will still be in VERY close proximity to a large number of dwellings in New Road, the main residential area in the village, and the proposed screening will do little to minimise the attendant problems of noise, dust and light pollution.
Additionally, I have always been concerned that the policies and considerations set out in the document issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the Government expects Mineral Planning Authorities (MPAs) to follow in preparing mineral and waste development schemes, have been followed in the case of MIN38.
The following are specific references from the said document, MPS32, which we believe are at odds with the selection of MIN38 :-

Para 4) " MPAs should.....ensurethat.....the transport of materials are kept to an absolute minimum". Given the Burgh Castle pit's much nearer proximity to Great Yarmouth, and it's ability to satisfy GY's requirements for the forseeable future (as stated by GYC), this surely precludes the opening of another pit further away.
"MPAs should.....protect areas of nationally-designated or archaeological value, cultural heritage or nature conservation from mineral development, other than excetional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development is in the public interest". We would question what "exceptional circumstance" exist in relation to MIN38, and how it has been "demonstrated that the proposed development is in the public interest", when exactly the opposite would appear to be the case.

Para 5) "MPAs should liaise appropriately with......English Nature, the Countryside Agency......vouluntary conservation and enviromental groups". The developer's application had not even been referred to the Broads Authority let alone any of the others. At a meeting that took place between a group from the village and the Planners, it was stated by them that they were not obliged to do so, but this is directly contradicted by MPS2.


Para 8) "mineral working applications......in or affectingthe following designations (National Parks, the Broads).....should be subject to the most rigorous examinnation, nomally including an Environmental Statement, regardless of the size of the site". This consideration was taken into account in the site being found "Not Acceptable".

Para 11) "Development plan policies and proposals for mineral extraction and associated development should take into account: the impacts of mineral working, such as visual intrusion, dewatering,water pollution, noise, dust and fine particulates, blasting and traffic". These are surely key to the planner's recommendation not to allocate this site. Likewise "the impacts on landscape, agricultural land,soil resources,ecology and wildlife, including severance of landscape and habitat loss, and impacts on sites of nature conservation, archaeologicla and cultural heritage value".''

Para 12) "MPAs shouls also have regard where relevant to cumulative impacts of simultaneous and/or successive working of a number of sites in a wider area of commercially viable deposits. These may effect communities and localities over an extended period, the nature, age and size of the site". Burgh Castle pit is already and has at least 10 years more supply at current estimates. MIN38 would blight the village of Fritton for 22 years.

Para18) "Any.....loss of amenity must be kept to an acceptable minimum.....Where effective mitigation of unacceptable impact is not possible, permission should be refused". The Planners have correctly taken the view that the "mitigations" in the developer's proposal would do little to mitigate the loss of amenity for walkers, dog exercising, birwathching etc. or the destruction of the WW11 sites dotted around the site.

Object

Representation ID: 91762

Received: 19/07/2018

Respondent: Ms M Moore

Please accept this email as my written objection to destruction of the Waveney Forest.
I was gobsmacked when I heard this beautiful part of our county was under threat. My family and I often walk in this beautiful forest and I hate to think of the wildlife which is danger of losing their homes. We need to save the planet one forest at a time!

Object

Representation ID: 91763

Received: 19/07/2018

Respondent: Ms D Dalgetty

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: This is valuable green space.

Object

Representation ID: 91764

Received: 18/07/2018

Respondent: Mr S Barlow

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.
Comments: A dangerous road already due to the volume of traffic. Adding to this would be negligence of the highest order. The area has become easily flooded in recent years and this has been understated.

Object

Representation ID: 91765

Received: 18/07/2018

Respondent: Mrs M Shreeve

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.
Comments: We are vehemently opposed to this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 91766

Received: 19/07/2018

Respondent: Mr D Wadeson

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.
Comments: Why are we having this debate so soon after the last failed application?

Object

Representation ID: 91767

Received: 18/07/2018

Respondent: Mrs W Nutt

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.
Comments: You would be taking a lovely place away where people come for walks, also what about any wildlife. It's disgusting to think of a gravel pit there and all the pollution, please leave it alone.

Object

Representation ID: 91768

Received: 18/07/2018

Respondent: Mrs Stephanie Barlow

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.
Comments: Roads cannot cope with increased traffic. Already a nightmare!! Increase in accidents. Concern particularly re flooding point made above [The lower area to the west floods more readily than is suggested The Staithe area has no embankment protection. Suggested replacement wetlands will encourage flooding]. Difficult to get insurance as it is!

Object

Representation ID: 91769

Received: 19/07/2018

Respondent: Ms K Murphy

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.