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

I object. I find this matter absolute lunacy and that this proposal has even been considered.
Fritton Woods is renowned for its natural beauty and a large variety of protected wildlife. Also, it is prime hunting ground for birds of prey, especially owls.
Owls and birds of prey form an integral part of the biodiversity structure. They play a vital part in vermin control. Also, not all species of owl that we have in our area are totally nocturnal.
The lighting, noise, dust, air and water pollution, along with woodland devastation and disruption will destroy their hunting ability, food supply, shelter and habitat. Along with many other wildlife species. The list is vast.
I do my utmost to encourage owls back to Priory Farm and its surroundings. Various owl boxes have been erected as well as wildlife surveillance cameras to monitor their well-being and hunting and they are thriving. I am also in close liaison with Fritton Owl Sanctuary.
Part of Fritton Woods borders Priory Farm and since it has become Hillside Animal Sanctuary, wildlife, etc has flourished.
Areas of land here have been left undisturbed by grazing or cutting to allow the insects and bees to have a wild and natural area among the various grasses and wild flowers, etc. The bee population is expanding with many different species. I have personally planted a variety of bee and pollinating insect attraction plants and shrubs, which are successful. The project has produced amazing results.
The different areas that owl species rely on for survival are also carefully managed as to their individual requirements. Some hunt in open grassland, others in woods, others amazingly will hunt on the ground. If their food supply is bountiful and they feel no threat, they are as excellent at adapting as they are to hunting. Providing, of course, that the surroundings are amicable.
The hedgerows have been properly maintained and new ones planted along with young and established trees. This process enables our garden and woodland birds, etc to have extra natural habitat in which to thrive and our various bird populations, here at Priory Farm are vast.
Priory Farm in St Olaves, bordering Fritton Woods, has become a tranquil haven for all of nature's and wildlife's wonders and it is a very serene location.
Surely that proves that our conservation, good management and preservation, as well as the introduction of different requirements to keep existing wildlife and to attract new and other wildlife, is the key to a natural environmental balance. As to which, we have successfully achieved.
The proposals for mineral extraction, etc of Fritton Woods/ Waveney Forest and the destruction of our adjoining woodland, with dust, noise and pollution will incur irreversible devastation to all wildlife. Also, it will destroy the ecological balance of nature to an irretrievable level of jeopardy. It will also wreck all that has been achieved here at Priory Farm, St Olaves so far and the continuing conservation and preservation, etc to aid all aspects of nature in its survival.
Once again, I object.

I have many strong objections to Min 38, the proposal to desecrate the Waveney Forest, and none of them are due to my being a resident of Fritton village.

Heritage:
This site in my opinion is a shrine to those men who trained and fought in WW2 and undoubtedly is full of artefacts from the 1st world war too.
I am one of the fortunate few who have seen and indeed climbed into some of the hidden underground chambers.
It's a woodland full of historical nostalgia and should be left in peace, in one piece.

Highways:
Should the proposal go ahead I am in a quandary as to which route the estimated 50 heavily laden aggregates lorries will take towards Gr. Yarmouth?
Highways have said that there would have to be a designated right hand turn at the proposed new junction onto the A143 from the haul road. This is in the direction of St. Olaves, Somerleyton and Beccles with no possible turning point. This makes the suggested "benefit" of the site being the closest provider of sand and gravel to Gt. Yarmouth an absolute farce.

Amenity:
This site is possibly the largest, most secluded, quiet and peaceful recreational amenity that Gt. Yarmouth and it's surrounding villages have.
Don't deprive the general public of their right to enjoyment of such places.
There surely must be sufficient sites put forward that will not affect people's recreational activities and their love thereof?

Air Quality:
The human respiratory system is greatly affected by particulates in the air but not as much as it affects horses and cattle.
The Haddiscoe marshes and pastures just adjacent to the proposed Min 38 site are now home to hundreds of retired, abused, sick and old horses looked after by a local sanctuary. These horses, together with grazing cattle, should not endure the effects of dust particulates which will make the remainder of their already numbered days miserable and this would come with very costly Vets bills for the Sanctuary.
These marshes and pastures are on long term leases.
Redwings Horse Sanctuary is in the village too and would have the very same problems with their rescued stock.
The knock on effect would be that the landowners would no longer be able to lease these marshes or pastures for grazing therefore creating loss of livelihood too.

The granting of planning approval of Min 38 would have a huge impact within the society of its local vicinity.

I strongly object to Brett's application.

I have just read Rowland Dunn's 52 objections to the Councils plans for a gravel pit instead of having a FOREST at Waveney Forest....this is unbelievable & as a new resident in Norfolk, I am appalled by this knowledge & would be no matter which county a forest is in, this should not be even considered anywhere.

I urge you to think again & stop ruining our beautiful places & let all our young enjoy what a forest can offer as I & many like me did when we were young.

I am writing to object to the proposed grant of permission for an aggregates site in Fritton Woods. I understand the cultural, historical and environmental importance of this site, and I am extremely concerned that those whose role it is to govern for all of us, and not just for commercial interests, should even consider such an application.

You already have ample evidence of the reasons why permission should not be granted, and so I do not propose to repeat them, but I adopt them as justification for this objection.

I have no doubt that if permission is granted in the face of the sizeable objections, there will be an application for judicial review and, if needs be, a demand for a planning enquiry.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: Leave our green spaces alone.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: A beautiful wood, should not be cut down.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: Keep the nice area as it is.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: Keep 'England's green and pleasant land' and preserve our natural habitat.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: Apart from problems caused by lorry traffic and air pollution it would be a disgrace to sacrifice this woodland.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: Save our forest!!!

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: 1. having lived in B/Castle we know the impact a pit has.
2. We have two members of our family with medical conditions this will effect.
3. We built this house with our savings for us and our daughter's young family to live in peacefully in our retirement and now it's in jeopardy.
4. We agree with all other comments earlier raised:
These are the objections previously raised by Fritton and St Olaves Action Group and the Parish Council
* 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.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: I am in total agreement with all objections raised on this form.
These are the objections previously raised by Fritton and St Olaves Action Group and the Parish Council
* 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.

Representing Priory Farm, St Olaves:
Whilst I am aware of the fine balance between communities and commerce I believe that the evidence to stop this pit is overwhelming.
Summary:
PROXIMITY: I am writing to you regarding the proposed Gravel Extraction Plan at Fritton woods. The border of the farm is just a few metres away from the proposed extraction area.

I have many concerns and I would like to comment on the overall insanity of the proposal. I find it difficult to understand how the matter has come this far.
It will upset each and every homeowner and resident in St Olaves, Fritton and Belton as well as causing problems to local road infrastructure, travel delays and pollution.


REQUIREMENTS: Cutting down acres of mature trees and then digging up minerals that we have an excess of locally and that are surplus to requirements; especially considering that the local council have just signed a contract to purchase such aggregates from sea bed extraction and they tell me they have no need for sand.
Over all, I very much hope that the council listens to the people that it boasts it's here to serve and not a few individuals that live many miles away, that would tear up our landscape and the lives of the local people in the pursuit of personal gain, for a product that we do not need locally nor is in short supply nationally or internationally.

LOCATION: The development is in a rural area that is considered a national park by many and is just metres away from the Norfolk Broads, one of our region's biggest assets and one that has a massive contribution to our reign financially

ECOLOGY: The development will adversely affect the outlook from the river, as well as polluting the river Waveney and killing the wildlife and its habitat.

WATER SUPPLY/POLLUTION: The water table localy to the site is permeable so the whole of the surrounding area will be affected by the pollution caused by the machinery extracting the aggregates.
The small tributary running over our farm will be polluted, by way of the water table and the polluted water will then be pumped directly into the River Waveney by a large and dedicated pump run by the Somerleyton estate that serves to drain the surrounding area including the woods.

NEW SCHEME TO ENCOURAGE RE POPULATION OF ELLS TO FRITTON LAKE
I have been part of a scheme to open up a water channels from the river at St Olaves to Fritton lake, allowing 'pump-free' running water to access the river via a tidal gate. This project would be at risk due to contamination from the close by work and dust that would pollute the water in the newly formed stream.

DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION: There are 4 homes at the foot of the farm that rely on an Artesian aquifer for all their water needs including drinking water. Their water supply will be contaminated.

HIGHWAYS: There will be a massive increase in slow moving heavy goods vehicles on an already slow road into Great Yarmouth. This road already has massive congestion at the bridge at St Olaves at peek time.

EMERGENCY SERVICES: The A143 is the main road used by ambulances dispatched from The Paget Hospital. Large lorries accessing this road, will slow up emergency services. This road typically has over 8 Ambulances a day use it and all are time critical journeys. The slow moving and frequent lorry's will delay theses time critical journeys and may on occasion lead to unnecessary deaths as a result of critical care being delayed.

AMENITY: There will be substantial noise pollution and on top of this there will be Air pollution from the heavy machinery used to extract the sand and gravel.
The trees that surround this site do NOT act to block dust and partial contamination created by the many heavy industrial vehicles used in mineral extraction, they in fact cause the particles to be pushed up into the atmosphere. This alone is damaging to the overall health of people living nearby as well as animals and livestock.
This situation is made worse by the presence of high voltage powerlines that are present the entire length of the arear in question. Partial contamination is known to increase the instances of lunch cancer and asma related condition. livestock will be subject to increased contaminates from both the air and grazing, which will go on to be present in the food chain.

ANIMAL SANCTUARIES AND TOURISM
Hillside animal sanctuary are resident on the farm land at St Olaves and also on the grazing paddocks to the rear of the existing woods. Redwings Houses sanctuary is present on the land to the north of the woods. Fitton woods are almost surrounded by Animal sanctuaries and indeed grazing animals. There are hundreds of previously sick animals that are homed within meters of the woods whilst they recover. The noise, pollution and dust will be nothing short of torture for they already distressed animals.

Both of these animals sanctuaries and open to the public and have invested heavily in the arear. There presents have become a valuable local assets, creating employment and tourism income. Anything that jeopardises these newly located attractions would adversely affect our arear.

HEALTH & SAFETY: The pollution from the machinery has been proven to cause harm to both cattle and humans alike. It has been proven to cause many health problems and in Europe and many other countries globally has already been banned, this point is escalated given that the site is littered with high tension power lines, which have been proven by the Bristol University to ionize the dust which makes it more likely to stick to the walls of the lungs.
This in itself opens up the potential of legal action against the council from any individuals whose health might be affected over the next 20 years; especially now that the council has been made aware of the health risks in advance of granting permission.

Fire Hazzord: Fitton woods has always been a fire hazard and with active extraction this hazard would be significantly increased. A fire in this location would be devastating to our regain.

A good friend of mine has written this with regards to Fritton Woods and the proposed site for a sand and gravel pit. My husband and I support this view and statement 100%.
I am not sure if you are aware but there is a beautiful part of the Norfolk countryside under threat of destruction and desecration.
I would implore you to use your influence to try and avert this National tragedy before it is too late.
Norfolk County Council are due to make a decision of the site in the near future.
Below I list [ 52 ] reasons why it is felt that the site is not only not suitable but would be immensely catastrophic if it were to go ahead.
1) What makes interesting reading is the Governments '' Strategy for England's Trees, Woods and Forests''
http://www.defra.gov.uk/.../rdd.../pdf/0706forestry-strategy.pdf
To quote the foreword of Barry Gardiner Parliamentary Under-secretary, D.E.F.R.A., 'Trees and Woodland make a big difference to the quality of people's lives, improving the places in which they live and work' he goes on to say that 'Climate change is the biggest of those challenges. Our trees and their associated soils make a valuable contribution to reducing Carbon Emissions'. In addition he says that 'Native woodland plants and animals need a network of wooded habitats along which they can move as the climate of their present habitats change'.
2) In this day and age when there is such an outcry about Global Warming, The Climate Change Act 2008 (c 27) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act makes it the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for all six Kyoto greenhouse gases for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline, toward avoiding dangerous climate change. The Act aims to enable the United Kingdom to become a low-carbon economy and gives ministers powers to introduce the measures necessary to achieve a range of greenhouse gas reduction targets. An independent Committee on Climate Change has been created under the Act to provide advice to UK Government on these targets and related policies. In the act Secretary of State refers to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. In our opinion, to mutilate this forest is not doing more to help the Planet but further destroying it.
It is doubtful that cutting down so many trees is in the Paris Agreement on Climate change
3) You will not be able to move the plant life and Fungi.
4) The "Pond Life" in the tributaries of the River Waveney, of which some is a food source for other wildlife would also suffer
5) Whilst it could be possible to catch and transfer the bird and wildlife to other location you will not be able to transfer the whole food chain; therefore, in effect, you will be condemning members of the various species moved to a certain death as wherever they are moved will overpopulate that area, depreciating the food chain drastically and causing the numbers to shrink due to the lack of available food.
6) This is one of only a few spot in the U.K. where Adders are prevalent . Given that they are protected under European Law it would be in appropriate to move them.
7) The habitat of the VERTIGO MOULINSIANA - Snail - would be destroyed and this is protected by European Law.
8) Great Yarmouth does not have any similar area for its population to visit
a) for the education of its children and future generations
b) for the infirmed to be taken for a change of scenery, fresh air
c) for people to exercise, relax and relieve themselves of the stress of modern living
d) for people to take their parents and grandparents for a picnic
e) for parents to take their children for picnics
f) dog walkers will have no other alternative but to take their dogs along Great Yarmouth Beaches
g) dog walkers will have no other alternative but to take their dogs along Gorleston Beach
h) Horse Riders will have no other alternative but to ride along Great Yarmouth Beaches
i) Horse Riders will have no other alternative but to ride along Gorleston Beach
9) People for miles around come to this particular Forest for rest, relaxation and to de-stress the rigours of modern living because similar facilities in their area s have been decimated and mutilated.
10) The 'Trunk' roads around the area will not be able to handle the increased heavy duty traffic
11) The small villages will not be able to handle the traffic when there is an accident on the A.12 / A.47 / A.143 and A.146 as frequently happens
12) Access to the specific area will be limited and difficult.
13) There are currently numerous Electricity Pylons [16 / 18 let alone the ones at either end which will have to be diverted ] running through the middle of the forest which will cost several million pounds to move
14) There will be numerous compensation claims from the residents in at least 5 mile radius whose lives will be blighted should this situation go ahead .
15) There will be a further erosion of the Suffolk Sandling Heath
16) There will be pollution to the River Waveney
17) The "sub-aquafa" would be contaminated
18) There are Unique Relic's from both WW I and WW II that need to be preserved
19) There is the ancient Bell Hill Battery
20) It is alleged that the integrity of Haddiscoe Bridge is in question [ if not the bridge itself then the approaches onto it ] . This will accelerate considerably, with the increased H.G.V., traffic should the pit go ahead
21) N.C.C., are in print stating that they want to minimise the impact on the quality of life and the environment = should this pit go ahead it will impact greatly on the lives of numerous small villages / Hamlet & Towns in the South East of Norfolk and North East Suffolk
22) Great Yarmouth is about 140 acres short of the required civil amenities for the area and this will further exacerbate the situation. Possibly more when all the local house building is completed.
23) [a] Essex & Suffolk water table would come under stress from the excess usage.
[b] The Water Framework Directive 2017 needs to be taken into consideration
24) Part of Great Yarmouth Beach are set aside for Little Terns which are endangered. This is has a SS1 classification but this will be in danger if the Forest is lost to dog-walkers & people trying to find an alternative for rest & relaxation.
25) Other pits in the area [ Browston / Burgh Castle & Raveningham ] to not make it viable for another pit in my opinion
26) I understand that the quality of the sand is not that good
27) The Gravel could not be extracted by river as this would cause untold damage to the riverbanks and there is serious doubt if it would actually be commercially viable.
28) In March 2009, it was reported that the whole of the Broads are in jeopardy due to climate change; this will exacerbate the situation.
29) There is a strong likelihood that once the sand & / or gravel has been exhausted that the area will be turned into landfill which will also cause unnecessary pollution to the River Waveney and Fritton Lake which is a reservoir and supplies the local population with fresh water for drinking.
30) English Heritage are likely to get an S.M.S. [ Special Monumental Site ] upon at least part of the forest
31) There is a sharp corner where New Road meets the A.143 where the old Jolly Angler pub used to be which is virtually impassable if you get two large vehicles meet going in opposite directions. In my opinion it is an accident waiting to happen at the moment let alone with increased heavy duty vehicle traffic. It has been documented that there have been several vehicles mounting the pavement in order to negotiate the bend and Highways are unable to do anything about it as the Norfolk County Councillor has had several meetings with them about it.
32) New Road is the only access into the Forest and it is not suitable for H.G.V., traffic. In several spots it is only suitable for one car and is therefore totally unsuitable for two H.G.V's going in opposite directions.
33) Access from a new entrance on the A.143 would be dangerous because it would be on a hill.
34) There is currently a speeding problem along the stretch of road between Fritton & St. Olaves which the Police and Highways have been aware of for some years now but appear unable or unwilling [ my opinion ] to do something about it.
35) Being so close to the James Paget Hospital the additional traffic could have a serious influence on the already under pressure Ambulance service and add to the stress level of the hard working employee's
36) Great Yarmouth Borough Council have objected to the destruction of the Forest for use as a Gravel pit
37) Fritton & St. Olaves Parish Councillors have objected to the destruction of the Forest for use as a Gravel pit
38) Local Papers recorded Norfolk County Council being handed petition's with signatures in excess of 15,000 against the proposal at a previous attempt.
39) The major land owner in the area has a project to re-introduce Eel's into the River Waveney and Fritton Lake but this is likely to be disturbed.
40) Valuable Reed Beds would be destroyed
41) Invaluable Public Footpaths & Rights of way would need to be destroyed.
42) It would have a detrimental effect on Local Tourism
43) It would seriously affect the solitary bus route which Older people, those who do not have the use of a vehicle require and rely upon to get to the James Paget hospital and into Great Yarmouth and Beccles. Then you have the children travelling to & from school.
44) There would be serious dust pollution over a vast area
45) There would be serious noise pollution
46) There would be serious Light pollution
47) Serious pollution will be encountered from the 40 plus vehicles per day together the with the ancillary machinery.
48) People in the area who already have health problems would be adversely affected in particular those with the various types of breathing problems
49) Petitions against the Gravel Pit received over 20,000 signatures
50) There are several stretches of the A.143 road between Great Yarmouth and Beccles where it is questionable that 2 heavy lorries could pass safely going in opposite directions because the road is not wide enough.
51) There are several schools on &/or near the A.143 which would be vunerable.
52) Wetlands in the area could stagnate, encourage flooding and breeding of mosquitoes e.t.c., which would be a further health hazard to residents in the surrounding areas not to mention Local Tourism.

Proposed Quarry at Waveney Forest, Fritton.
What I find particularly irksome about this application is that in making it at all the applicants are seemingly prepared, with the owners, to discount previous arrangements made under Crown aegis, for continuance of the forest as a public amenity.
For some forty years the forest was maintained as a working and amenity forest by central government funding via the Forestry Commission before being (mistakenly?) sold into private hands. Subsequently the current custodians 'took the queen's shilling' in the form of Forestry Commission help to enhance the future amenity value of the forest (see figure 1 for exact text)
Some time after mooting plans for a quarry the owners confined forestry access to the pre-existing rights of way and later both the 'walkers welcome notices' bearing the figure 1 text were removed from the forest entry points complete with Crown emblems.
To discount the continuance of this amenity forest in this manner must surely be wrong? What would Her Majesty say? Some insight may be gained from Her Majesty's words to Commonwealth Heads of Government [Malta 2015]: "I have been especially touched by one such project, The Queen's Commonwealth Canopy, which has been proposed by Commonwealth countries wanting to harness their collective expertise and resources to protect the world's forests."
I trust that you will allow the Waveney Forest to continue in being.

Figure 1 text under F.C's Crown emblem: "The Forestry Authority Forestry Commission
Welcome! By agreement with the owner you are welcome to walk here.
A new woodland is being created for your enjoyment and that of future generations with the help of the Forestry Authority"

Proposed sand and gravel extraction at Waveney Forest
My wife Freda and I reside at Forest Lodge within Waveney Forest. Our house, possibly the nearest to the quarry, is positioned only some 120 metres from the nearest extraction site, the corner of our garden being 20 metres closer.
So positioned, it is evidence that we would be exposed to totally unacceptable environmental impacts from noise and airborne dust.
Some 24 years ago we both took early retirement partly on health grounds. We chose to live in the Waveney Forest, rather than to remain near our family in the midlands, because of the fresh air and unique tranquillity which it afforded. We therefore find the prospect of a noisy, dusty extraction site close to, and dominantly upwind of us particularly distressing.
The applicants have yet to provide the required independent quantitative determination of their expected noise emissions. However, even with a very conservative estimate of these, because of the extreme tranquillity of the site and the way noise impact is assessed (the quieter it already is the less additional noise is acceptable) (Guidelines for noise impact assessment 2002) the perceived sound level at Forest Lodge would be several times that represented by the 10dB threshold of the highest of the five impact categories - termed 'major' noise impact.
The likely level of airborne dust exposure at Forest Lodge may be inferred from statistically robust multiple determinations carried out over time near a sand and gravel facility (Holmen BA and Shiraki R: Airborne respirable silica near a sand and gravel facility in central California: XRD and Elemental Analysis to distinguish source and background quartz: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002)
When the data from the wind rose, previously deemed relevant by the would-be pit developers, is used together with the above fall-out data the predicted airborne dust exposure, so close in, is substantially more than is allowed in both existing and prospective UK National Air Quality Standard and European Directives (see National Air Quality objectives and European Directive limit and target values for the protection of human health - latest update)
Also the predicted level of dust exposure is many times greater than the 2 to 5 micrograms/m3 above background measured in the benchmark report previously cited as relevant by the applicants [Pless-Mulloli T et al - Living near open cast coal mining sites and children's respiratory health: Occup Environe Med 2000 March] (future test exposure of human subjects to hazardous airborne dust is unlikely on ethical grounds!)
Even this latter modest level of dust exposure was associated with a marked increase in GP consultations (over 40%). This was in a statistically significant group of young human subjects in normal health.
Concerning health it is to be noted that we both experience long standing health problems which could well be exacerbated by airborne quarry dust.
The applicants may well suggest 'mitigation measures' claimed to reduce the impact of their activities. There is however, scant independent scientific evidence of their effectiveness. The aggregates industry, however, have the resources to sponsor independent determinations of effectiveness through bone fide academic institutions if the outcome were likely to be to their advantage. There is little indication that they have done so.

The Planning and Environment Division of the Department of Communities and Local Government require that planning decisions entail careful consideration of the likely effects on the surrounding area and the views of local residents.
The health and welfare of their residents is the prime responsibility of all Local Authorities. Accordingly we ask that you give every consideration to allowing us to continue to live here in peace.
We look forward to your considered reply in due course.

We object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

Proposed Gravel Extraction in Waveney Forest (Fritton Woods)
Planning Ref: MIN38

The Broads Society is extremely concerned regarding the proposals by Bretts to commence gravel extraction within Waveney Forest. This application flies in the face of national concerns over denuding National Parks of their increasing loss of trees and natural cover. Waveney Forest is in an area of outstanding natural beauty lying as it does in the heart of the island of Lothingland between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, and not far from Fritton Lake which is the site of one of the last of the working Duck Decoys.

The proposed extraction is very close to important residential areas and the resulting dust, disturbance to wildlife and difficulty of access will impact on the local community and landscape lying, as it does, close to the River Waveney. If it were to proceed the risk of pollution in the River Waveney is a risk that must not be ignored.

The A143 is already overused and dangerous and the resulting increase in heavy traffic would be totally unacceptable.

We live in a fragile landscape, currently one of the finest wetland areas in Europe, and The Broads Society feels most strongly that Norfolk County Council must resist all pressure to allow this proposed devastation within one of our precious National Parks to proceed. We are, therefore, strongly opposed to this application.

Today Planning Committee endorsed the response below to the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Issues and Options consultation.

I hope this is helpful and I am happy to clarify any points if needed.


Main document
* The Broads has been identified by Historic England as an area with exceptional potential for waterlogged archaeology. Any excavation within or close to the executive area will require particularly robust archaeological evaluation prior to consenting and not rely on a brief desk based evaluation and conditions.
* For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps say that this covers the entire county of Norfolk.
* Perhaps something about how it fits with our Local Plans? Something about how Authorities consulted if application in or near to area? We would like to understand how our special qualities and our policies that could be of relevance would be considered in decision making.
* Page 16, 28 - the Broads has a status equivalent to a national park.
* Page 23 - suggest A3 landscape.
* Page 28: Typographical error: 'Landscape Character Assessments have been carried by the Local Planning Authorities in for Norfolk and they consider where locally designated landscapes of importance are situated'.
* Page 39: Typographical error: 'and/or the volumes of waste in each area so low that it would be unviable for a full range of waste management facilities to exist in every area'.
* Page 41: Typographical error: 'end-of-live vehicles' - should this be 'life'?
* Page 46: Typographical error: '...have similar locational requirements due to their potential to impact on local amenity and the environmental'.
* Page 49: Typographical error: 'of waste electronic electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)'
* WP17 and MP10 and MP11 - will you provide GIS layers of these facilities and consultation zones?
* Page 61: Typographical error: 'the most recently available date'
* The areas on page 67 - the Broads is not mentioned. Presumably this is because silica sand only occurs in West Norfolk Borough?
* Page 77: Typographical error: 'will be made by on a case by case basis'.
* Page 78: Typographical error: 'Carstone is also a scare resource in Norfolk and therefore it is appropriate for the entire carstone resource to be safeguarded as part of the MSA'
* Page 78 - reference to peat. Whilst extraction is not supported in the NPPF, what about the removal of peat as part of the development related to minerals and waste? Peat has many important qualities and the Authority has a policy relating to peat. How will this be used in determining applications in the Broads? As well as that, you may wish to look at policies relating to peat in terms of its removal and how it is to be treated in relation to its properties.
* Page 81 - are there any areas in Norfolk that could be investigated for unconventional hydrocarbons/fracking?
* Appendix 4: What about moorings and river bank stabilisation and other such applications that occur in the Broads but probably not elsewhere in Norfolk?
* General comment: headers and paragraph numbering would make the document easier to read - pages of text with no breaks was difficult to read.

Question 5: MW2
* Page 26, MW2 could mention dark skies. You could refer to the CPRE Night Blight data as well as our dark skies policy and zones.
* Page 27: Dark skies are important in the Broads and elsewhere. Perhaps more could be said about lighting: directing lighting downwards and away from properties and only lighting if needed and temporary versus permanent illumination.
* Page 27: 'A baseline ecological survey will be necessary where biodiversity features are present on a proposed site. Such surveys are essential in identifying what exists on a proposed mineral or waste management site and establishing whether such features should be retained and managed'. This is a bit confusing and seems to say that a survey would be needed to see if there are biodiversity features on a proposed site to then need a survey? We recommend that all sites would require baseline ecological survey and assessment of the presence of rare and protected species.
* Page 28: 'Local recreation assets, including Public Open Space and other outdoor facilities such as country parks, are protected in District, Borough and City Local Plans'. Also protected in the Local Plan for the Broads.
* Page 29: 'whilst others designated at a local level are subject to protection through District, Borough and City Local Plans'. Also mention the Local Plan for the Broads.

Question 6: MW3
* Page 33: 'All proposals for minerals development or waste management facilities must assess and consider positively the potential for non-HGV transportation of materials to and from the facilities, principally by rail or water'. Perhaps you might want to require an assessment that looks into this and shows their considerations? As written, an applicant does not seem to be required to do anything other than think about it.
* Page 33: 'The County Council will consider minerals and waste development proposals to be satisfactory in terms of access where anticipated HGV movements, taking into account any mitigation measures proposed, do not generate'. Wonder if this could be worded in a more simple way?

Question 7: MW4
* Uses the word 'should' which is quite weak term. A stronger term similar to that uses in other policies (like will need to, must, is required to) might be better.
* Some aspects repeat MW2 - does that matter?

Question 9: MW6
* Does MW6 repeats MW2?
* See previous comment about peat. Should peat be mentioned in this policy?

Question 11: WP2
* Page 45: what is 'appropriate transport infrastructure'?
* Page 45: is the five mile requirement as the crow flies or by road/path etc?

Question 12: WP3
* Page 46: 'Policy WP3: Land uses potentially suitable for waste management facilities'. This does not seem an ideal title for the policy; the policy seems to be more about where waste management facilities can go. Not all of the areas listed in the criteria are land uses in the typical sense; they are areas to which such facilities are directed towards.
* Page 46, do criteria d, e, f apply even if the proposal is not within 5 miles of a town as talked about in the previous policy? How do WP2 and WP3 work together?

Question 16: WP7
* WP7: regarding the location, these could be away from urban areas according to some criteria in WP3. Should these be located near to larger urban areas (i.e. near to the source of the waste)?

Question 22: WP13
* Are the areas of these landfills identified and are any in the Broads?

Question 25: WP16
* Should this include reference to MW2? That seems to have relevant and detailed criteria.

Question 28: Policy MP2
* The Broads, which has a status equivalent to a national park, may need to be listed as a planning constraint

Question 29: MP3
* There is no mention of the requirement for restoration.
* In other policies you cross refer to a more detailed policy, but not in this policy. Presumably policy MW2 is of relevance and could be cross referred to?

Question 31: MP5
* Who does the assessment? Does that need to be handed in with the planning application? How will you liaise with the Broads Authority if proposals come forward in the river valleys in the Broads rather than just consult? Why is the Broads not included in the core river valleys? Is a separate policy on the Broads required? Or is it the case that the Broads is not covered by this policy as the Broads Authority Executive Area is shown on the policies map as a landscape designation and so rivers and broads within the BEA not included under core river valleys policy, potentially affording greater protection i.e. development could be acceptable in Core River Valleys? This could usefully be clarified.
* In other policies you cross refer to a more detailed policy, but not in this policy. Presumably policy MW2 is of relevance and could be cross referred to?
Question 32: MP6
* What are the criteria or is there a checklist that helps ascertain if cumulative impacts are unacceptable?

Question 33: MP7
* As well as GI, ecological networks? There is ecological network work underway for the entire county which could be of relevance.
* The last part says 'The Green infrastructure Strategy' - which strategy is this? The strategy of the district in which the proposal is located?
* There is also a Norfolk-wide habitats map that could be of relevance.

Question 34: Policy MP8
* To gain the ecological benefits outlined for many of the sites an outline aftercare strategy for a minimum of ten years, rather than five years is required prior to the determination of the planning application

Question 35: MP9
* It is not clear if the works then need to be removed and form part of the restoration works or are moth-balled. This could usefully be clarified.

Sites Document
* MIN 38 - land at Waveney Forest, Fritton - the Authority supports the conclusion that this should not be allocated for the reasons as set out in the assessment. Page 169 - the landscape character assessment is also relevant: http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publications-and-reports/planning-publications-and-reports/landscape-character-assessments. Broads Landscape Character Assessment 2016; Land considered as heathland Landscape Character Type (LCT) within the St Olaves to Burgh Castle Landscape Character Area (LCA). Land to the north and west considered to be estuarine marshland LCT within the same LCA. Haddiscoe Island LCA beyond river. The Authority strongly requests that Norfolk County Council liaise with us regarding this site and any future policy prior to the next version of the Local Plan. Strongly support this conclusion and the reasons for it. The current commercial forest operation, whilst not ideal in terms of the HE features within it, offers a degree of continued protection to those features. Page 169 Typographical error: "although food practice for tree felling" presumably should read good practice.

* MIN65; support submission of Heritage statement

* MIN 209, 210, 211; For information, the Broads Landscape Character Assessment 2016 says that this area is LCA Outney Common and Bath Hills, Industrial / Early post-industrial LCT boarders MIN 211. The Authority strongly requests that Norfolk County Council liaise with us regarding this site and the policy prior to the next version of the Local Plan. Support removal of plant site from BA executive area. What will go in its place?

* MIN 25; Broads Landscape Character Assessment 2016; Norton Marshes to Haddiscoe Dismantled Railway LCA immediately NE. Adjacent LCT is settlement fringe which would be covered in time by the Broads settlement fringe policy. Support submission of Heritage statement.Whilst this is not within the Broads, the Authority strongly requests that Norfolk County Council liaise with us regarding this site and the policy prior to the next version of the Local Plan.

MIN 92; Broads Landscape Character Assessment 2016; Chet Valley LCA, Carr woodland LCT to west and upland LCT to the north and south. Recommended not to support this site going forward (in terms of landscape) for reasons as set out in the supporting text under 'landscape'.

To Whom it may Concern,
In reference to the proposed scheme to include areas of Fritton in NCC's gravel and aggregate proposals; I feel that it is important to point out the grave implications for the wildlife and bio-diversity of this area. The removal of significant amounts of tree canopy covering this area, would have a drastic negative environmental consequences for plants, birds, mammals and invertebrates. It would lead to a major loss of wildlife habitat and also the amenity value of the woodland would be lost.
Local pollution levels will also increase with less carbon scrubbing capacity due to the removal of trees. This will also effect the water retention/interception capacity of the surrounding area, possibly leading to higher soil erosion.
The development of the site for economic reasons would have a negative impact on the biodiversity of the wider area and with many different habitats and eco systems being lost or detrimentally effected.
I feel this area provides a very important amenity and landscape value to the surrounding area and the Yarmouth borough as a whole. Enjoyed by the borough and is visible within the surrounding landscape.
Great Yarmouth Borough has very little woodland and any remaining 'pockets' need to be protected and retained as best they can, not only for wildlife but for the benefit of us all.

I am happy to discuss this further in my capacity of Tree Officer for GY Borough.

I objet to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: The infill will also be a huge problem and a health issue.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: It will destroy community enjoyment of the area.

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: We have just bought a new house along the relief road to the A47/A12 and did not know about the possibility of our peace being shattered by this traffic.