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

Object

Representation ID: 91856

Received: 25/07/2018

Respondent: Mr G Smith

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38:
Comments: Fully agree with the reasons given herein as to why this should not go ahead.
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.

Object

Representation ID: 91857

Received: 26/07/2018

Respondent: Mr I Kinge

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: Is a beautiful village please save it.

Object

Representation ID: 91858

Received: 26/07/2018

Respondent: Ms L Green

I object to Brett's application on MIN38

Object

Representation ID: 91859

Received: 26/07/2018

Respondent: Mr R J Smith

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: It should have been left as is.

Object

Representation ID: 91860

Received: 26/07/2018

Respondent: Ms J Lovejoy

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: I spent my childhood playing in Fritton Woods and still enjoying going for walks, and it would affect the village, also the wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 91861

Received: 26/07/2018

Respondent: Mr N K Lovejoy

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: I grew up in Fritton spent my childhood playing in the woods and loved it. Still walk there every weekend with my wife and still enjoy it even though I am now in my mid 60's also I have driven an HGV down New road on many occasions to load sugarbeet and it is not suitable for 1 lorry (let alone up to 50 a day)

Object

Representation ID: 91862

Received: 26/07/2018

Respondent: Mr I Pittman

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.
Comments: We should be recycling aggregates not quarry/mining new

Object

Representation ID: 91863

Received: 26/07/2018

Respondent: Aldeby Liaison Group

Waveney Forest also known as Fritton woods is a beautiful place near Belton and Gt Yarmouth and akin to the Waveney and marshland surrounding Fritton and Belton up to Burgh Castle.

We are very much opposed to this area being considered for Mineral extraction on the following grounds:
1. Amenity value to nature lovers of all sorts using this area of peace and calm.
2. The area being originally part of heath land and a last part of the Sandlings that extended from Ipswich to Gt Yarmouth, should be maintained as part woodland and managed back to its origin.
3. NCC should listen and act on the advices that F.A.R. have put to them.
4. NCC need to refer to and act on the advices by T. Gardiner author of The Natural History of the Waveney Forest, publ in 2013.
5. Hydrology suggests it will not affect Fritton Lake however, reverse flows are possible and brackish water contamination too from the tidal reaches of the WAVENEY , the nearby marshes and salty water in BREYDON WATER.
6. NCC should reject any future applications for this area based on the huge opposition locally to it in the previous application campaign.
7.The Broads Authority are nearby, the broads too and other sites of importance as you say.
8. Preserve it with a return to heath land and some woodland.

Summary: This site should be removed from the plan and not included in NCC plan.
Reasons; An environmental catastrophe waiting to happen with changing climate and water levels possibly affecting water collection in Fritton and Lound.
The area is a wonderful resource for local people (we have walked there for nearly 50 years). A heath /woodland with numerous plants, habitats, invertebrates and vertebrates put under threat or destroyed. Keep it safe for future generations, in spite of the aggressive commercial pressures for logging and minerals. Take note of the previous petition. Little has changed except the negative pressure on open spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 91864

Received: 26/07/2018

Respondent: Hillside Animal Sanctuary

We write to object to the above proposal which seeks to replace woodland with a noisy dangerous quarry adjacent to our Fritton Sanctuary.
At Hillside Sanctuary we look after approximately 3000 horses and cattle. At Fritton we occupy around 200 acres of land immediately adjacent and slightly lower than the forest to the west and southwest. We would expect normally to look after around 1000 animals in the surrounding area, 300 of these within metres of the boundary.
We have moved here since the previous application was declined and expected to experience tranquil surroundings to carry on our peaceful work at Fritton, there is a growing demand for our services and we have strong local and national support for our work. Our animals are a mixture of the old ,neglected, abused, anxious and or just unwanted animals and many have special needs. Most of all they need a quiet and peaceful sanctuary and certainly not to be adjacent a massive mineral quarry. We are aware of the dangers of dust particulates to horses, inflammation of the tracheal and bronchial membranes can result in the equivalent of human asthma or worse for horses which for a healthy horse is a serious concern, but for our sick animals this could be life threatening.
Pollution run off from higher land to our dykes is always a worry ,imagine a quarry accentuating this! Our horses relay on the dykes for drinking water quite often and a reliable and clean supply of water is essential for the longevity of our animals and indeed our organisation.
Our funding comes from donations,and to raise funds we have plans to apply for day visit facilities .An operating quarry will certainly not help us to encourage visitors to this arear or our centre.
The noise and dust dangers are obvious and being so very close, our animals will bear the brunt of the disturbance not to mention overnight lighting. Some of our animals have been through so much already and deserve a peaceful life and sanctuary.
I can not think of a less appropriate area to house a quarry given the surrounding and its usage.

Object

Representation ID: 91865

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Ms J Ray

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 run in the woods frequently. This means that I see just how many people use and enjoy this precious space. Dog walkers, joggers, children making dens, families exploring, horse riders and cyclists are all common and frequent sights, this woodland really is appreciated and used.

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.

Object

Representation ID: 91866

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Dog go!

Our objection to the recent application to establish a quarry at Waveney Forest is threefold as follows.

1. Commercial: We run a dog walking business in the area and the forest is unique locally in providing a large area to exercise bigger energetic dogs. Any restrictions to using this public amenity would have a large impact on our ability to run our business.

2. Environmental: it seems madness to support any scheme advocating the wholesale removal of tree canopy from our area. The destruction of habitat for flora and fauna would also be quite unacceptable.
The environmental and health impacts caused by extra traffic on an already busy road and it is impossible to justify acceptance of the proposal.

3. Public Interest: The forest provides a unique public amenity in the region and its loss would be felt hardest not only by those in the immediate vicinity but across the region in general. We urge you to reject this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 91868

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Dr B Kelly

I object to Brett's application MIN 38.
Comments: The A143 is already a dangerous and overloaded road to add heavy quarry lorries would make it impossible. We have to preserve our woodlands and the species that live in them. I strongly object to this application.

Object

Representation ID: 91869

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Ms S Luxon

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: Loss of woodland and any green areas is such a shame.

Object

Representation ID: 91870

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: C Leigh

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.

Object

Representation ID: 91871

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Mr P Johnson

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.

Object

Representation ID: 91872

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Mrs C Wood

Waveney Forest must be protected. We only have 10% woodland in England, the average in EU is 35%. Yet more and more woodland is destroyed all over the country. Unbelievable that a plan like MIN38 is even considered.

Object

Representation ID: 91873

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Mr A Salter

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.

Support

Representation ID: 91874

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Mr S Wood

I support Brett's application on MIN38.

Object

Representation ID: 91875

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Mr R Chaplin

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: This would represent further degradation and loss of former common land.

Object

Representation ID: 91876

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Mr T Summons

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.

Object

Representation ID: 91877

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Mr S Lamb

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.

Object

Representation ID: 91878

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: D Biswell

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.

Object

Representation ID: 91879

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Mrs L Radford

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: We bought our holiday home in Fritton because we love the areas' natural beauty, peacefulness and LACK of industry. We visit often and spend our money in local businesses, utilise local attractions and generally support the tourism of Norfolk. How can you expect people to enjoy travelling around the area competing with huge lorries? I thought the Waveney Valley and the Broads areas would be something a council would want to protect.

Object

Representation ID: 91880

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Mr R Casey

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.

Object

Representation ID: 91881

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: S Oosthuysen

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: This is outrageous - stop the quarry. The wildlife will be destroyed and recreation for a community erased.

Object

Representation ID: 91882

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Mr J Radford

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 MIN38 for all the above reasons.

Object

Representation ID: 91883

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Mrs C Chaplin

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 MIN38. Above says it all particularly loss of tree habitat. One of very few areas left to walk in, in Norfolk local area.

Object

Representation ID: 91887

Received: 30/07/2018

Respondent: Mrs C Hurren

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.

Object

Representation ID: 91888

Received: 30/07/2018

Respondent: Ms J Kinkaid

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: I strongly object to Brett's application. It is ridiculous!!

Object

Representation ID: 91889

Received: 30/07/2018

Respondent: Mr A J Postle

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: I have friends living on New Road, I am concerned their house would lose value if the application is approved.