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

Object

Representation ID: 91891

Received: 27/07/2018

Respondent: Mrs C Beard

With regards to the planning application to turn over 43 hectares of beautiful Waveney Forest at Fritton into a gravel pit.

I cannot even begin to contemplate that this application will be approved and I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail.

I live in Bradwell and my concerns are the increase in traffic on the A143 and the safety of the road. The entry to New Road, beside the Decoy Tavern that leads down to Waveney Forest, is very close to a blind corner. New Road itself is very narrow, and more so nearer to the site of the forest.

The Waveney Forest is such a valuable asset to people and wildlife. In today's worrying times of climate change, we need our green spaces and trees more than ever and in this very hot weather, Waveney Forest provides a cool place of refuge for humans, animals and birds. It is a beautiful, peaceful place and is freely accessible and readily available to all. It is also an important and significant WW2 historical site.

Recently, there has been a charge imposed by Lord Somerleyton for the public to use the nearby Fritton Woods and also, behind my house in Bradwell, there are 800 houses being built on farmland. Immediately behind this development there was a large wooded area that has totally been destroyed and cut down. Another loss to locals and wildlife. Owls used that area and I haven't seen or heard any since the devastation.

I cannot stress enough my concerns on the impact of such destruction on our environment and also the contributing factors towards climate change. The devastation on losing such a beautiful space would be tragic and of no benefit to anyone except to the contractors themselves.

Object

Representation ID: 91893

Received: 30/07/2018

Respondent: Ms T Brownlow

I am writing to appeal against the proposal for mineral pit development in Fritton Woodlands.
I have enjoyed use of the Woods for over 40 years. I lived in the village for a number of years and, like countless others, enjoyed many hours of horse riding, dog walking and picnics in the Woods. Since leaving the village, I have chosen to return regularly to walk my dogs and take my children to enjoy the unique surroundings - using the location to educate them about the importance of the historic bunkers secreted in the woodlands and the role these played in helping Britain's War efforts, and the beautiful wildlife to be found in the Woods.
I now work as head of Health and Wellbeing at Suffolk Sport, and could not be more focused on trying to preserve opportunities for people to take 'green exercise' - i.e. outdoor exercise in rural environments. If you are unaware of the huge benefits green exercise can bring, please see the following article, which gives a good introduction to the much researched area of the benefits to health - particularly mental health, that exercising in areas such as Fritton Woodlands can bring.
https://www.outdoorrecreation.org.uk/wp-content/themes/orn/pdf-archive/2005%20-%20VOL%2013-1%20Spring.pdf#page=3
There is also significant national media interest in the idea of green exercise provision, and any internet search will highlight a number of articles that have been written in major newspapers. The surrounding areas - particularly Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft, and Gorleston have significant areas of depravation, and endangering the use a free local facility in which to encourage physical activity, would be very ill advised, particularly in light of media interest into preserving free access to places that encourage people to be less sedentary. Mental and Physical Health problems (particularly Cardiac Disease and Type 2 Diabetes) are high in the local area, and residents need to be encouraged to use the natural environment to become active, which will help to raise mood and improve their physical health. A beautiful, and free to use facility, is something of immense value and we should not be allowing it to come under threat from air pollution and increased heavy traffic.
Horse riders and dog walkers need space to exercise safely with their animals, and traffic levels in the area mean these opportunities are few and far between. I cannot envisage a way to combine the current proposal with safe public access, given the significant pollution and increased traffic hazards that would be encountered.
Additionally, I can only imagine how damaging the increased air pollution and heavy goods traffic would be on the unfortunate villagers of Fritton. As a former resident of the village, the peaceful environment was cherished by those who chose to live there. A proposal of this nature would be something that violates the very essence of the village in which they have chosen to live.
I would like to be kept informed of any updates - removal of safe access to a prime green exercise site such as Fritton Woodlands would be something I would wish to raise with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

Object

Representation ID: 91894

Received: 30/07/2018

Respondent: Mr P Barwell

I disagree with the MIN 38 Proposal. I enjoyed walking in Fritton Woods and would hate to see it destroyed

Object

Representation ID: 91898

Received: 30/07/2018

Respondent: Mr M Dodd

My family lived at the corner of New Road, Fritton and the A143 for over 40 years, so I am very familiar with the area and have many memories of traffic problems.
While the traffic is of major concern to the proposal, surely the greatest reason to object, will be the loss of a large area of woodland, which is so precious to the environment.

This is not a case of NIMBYISM, because I do not live in Fritton, but I DO HAVE CONCERNS about the environment !!!

The Fritton and St.Olaves Action Group will forward a list of the previous objections and I have no hesitation in asking for my name to be added to that list.

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: 91899

Received: 30/07/2018

Respondent: Mr G Power

The new application for a mineral quarry in Waveney Forest has just come to my attention. I am surprised by this given the refusal of the previous application. I am also extremely concerned about the numerous and severe negative impacts this application will have on the area and its residents if granted. The Waveney's unspoiled natural beauty is a national treasure and such destruction seems, to me at least, to be unthinkable.

Object

Representation ID: 91906

Received: 01/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Alton Matherne

I am emailing to add my objection to the desecration of Fritton Wood by the proposed mineral extraction.

I have been walking in Fritton Wood since 1987 when I moved to Gorleston from London. That haven from the stresses of work, family and life in general has been the reason I have avoided many times of depression and dismay.

When the loss of loved ones weighed heavy on my heart, I found peace and healing walking thru the forest with my dogs and my thoughts.

I am sure those woods have provided the same comfort to many people and certainly has given hours of great pleasure to many nature loves, dog walkers, hikers and others who enjoy the beauty of nature.

To replace that with the dust, noise, run off pollution to the river, the traffic on the A143, the disruption to the tranquillity of the area, the stress to the local residence and the loss of the only area the public can enjoy for miles around is certainly unacceptable.

I know the objections won the day during the last campaign by the gravel company and the planning application was rejected. I implore you to come to the same conclusion for many of the same reasons during you consideration of the current application for destruction of a much loved and valued site.

I know many others have written with more practical reasons for rejection and I am sure you know those reasons better than I. But my appeal is on humanitarian grounds which surly is the most important. Let the gravel come from some other site which will not impact so many people, so much of nature and not destroy a place of beauty which gives too much to the local community.

Object

Representation ID: 91907

Received: 31/07/2018

Respondent: Mr J Wadeson

Please consider this letter my personal objection to the proposed development of a mineral extraction site between New Road, Fritton and the river Waveney. The proposed area is and always has been an area of natural seclusion, for both the people, plants and animals. And whether the area is forested or left fallow, as much of it currently seems, it quickly returns to a beautiful wilderness state, coveted by all who know it.

I have lived in the immediate area for many years, (Actually within 250m of the proposed site, as your departments recent letter to me confirmed.) was married in Fritton church and have three generations of the Wadeson family living within the village of Fritton. As a local proud of our beautiful village aspect, it saddens me greatly that Brett Aggregates is once again seeking to put profitability (read 'economic growth' in their words, if you like) ahead of the well-known and well publicised environmental concerns held by many hundreds of residents in the area.

I understand that by due process it is your role to listen to both sides of this kind of argument and address any such plans in a fair and reasonable manner. But I also feel that the situation has changed insufficiently in the last ten years to make the outcome of this application any different from the last. As such I would ask you to come to the same conclusions that your department did in the previous application a decade ago and dismiss it. All of the villagers in Fritton, St Olaves, Belton and Halvergate, that I have spoken to are extremely worried about the suggestion of aggregate extraction in proximity to their homes. This concern is also backed up by the potential for reduction in air quality and the certain environmental impact. Adding to this consternation is the air of confusion relating to the subsequent use of the land, and the anger around suggestions of landfill options being prepared by the land owners. The term nightmare doesn't even come close to describing this.

One further thing, and possibly the greatest immediate concern for the villages of Fritton and St Olaves, is the plan to use the A143 for removal of the aggregate by road. Only this afternoon we witnessed the aftermath of a road traffic collision outside our house which involved a large slow-moving vehicle. (We live on the A143 between the two villages.) These situations occur quite rarely now but would certainly stand the chance of a significant uplift in frequency if the traffic were increased by tens or hundreds of trips by heavy vehicles, (both full and empty) turning onto the route each day. Of course, this would lead to an unprecedented level of disruption to existing industry traffic and commuters using the route.

Whilst I am sure that some thought has been given to access, I would also like to point out that I have not yet seen a viable plan which mitigates traffic problems on the Fritton turnpike, or via the historic iron bridge in St Olaves which is already a local traffic bottleneck. If such a plan exists, I would welcome the chance to review it. In the instance of aggregate traffic, I would also ask you to speak with other villages and parish's that would also be affected on the possible road transport routes, including: Haddiscoe, Somerleyton, Bradwell, Toft Monks, Hales and further afield even in Beccles and Loddon.

As my own voice is just one of many in this matter, I don't expect a response to my letter but do hope that you or somebody in your department reads it and understands the sentiment in which it is written. The fear and loathing towards this plan within our community is very difficult to describe to those on the outside, and for those in authority it may look like we are a small group standing in the way of progress or change. In fact, this view could not be further from the truth. As a community we love the area where we live and the prospect of it being reduced to a commodity is tantamount to the rape of something the we hold very dear. I apologise if this seems strong, but I don't think it overstates the feeling of our community.

Object

Representation ID: 91908

Received: 31/07/2018

Respondent: Ms M Fleming

I object to Brett's application on MIN38

Object

Representation ID: 91909

Received: 31/07/2018

Respondent: Ms A Bermundez

I object to Brett's application on MIN38

Object

Representation ID: 91910

Received: 31/07/2018

Respondent: Redwings

I object to Brett's application on MIN38
Affecting horses and human health as well as damage to tourism; local employment for tourism.

Object

Representation ID: 91911

Received: 01/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs C Tate

I object to Brett's application on MIN38
There's enough traffic with estates being built and holiday traffic. We need somewhere just to relax and wander. Also we don't need any more traffic lights on roundabouts.

Object

Representation ID: 91913

Received: 30/08/2018

Respondent: Priory Farm Restaurant

Having only just been made aware of the proposed Gravel Extraction Plan at Fritton Woods, I would like to STRONGLY OBJECT to this proposal.
Being a local resident and living in Belton and Proprietor of The Priory Farm Restaurant at St Olaves, all boarding the proposed area, I am very concerned about the impact the Gravel Extraction and the effects it will have on the environment with all the excessive noise and pollution it will generate.
The area which is proposed is a natural beauty and used by all the locals, from general walking, exploring with the family or just peacefully watching the wild life and enjoying the tranquility. The Woods are used by many Belton residents and holiday makers from the local Haven Holiday Park, as it can be walked easily from Belton in less than 15 min down a lovely sandy lane, very picturesque and beautiful, through Caldecott Golf Course and straight into the woods.
Please come and see this area for yourself and I'm sure you will agree how we should stop this unnecessary plan.
This is an iconic place and does not deserve to be destroyed for needless digging.
Also I would like to raise concerns on the impact it will have on Tourism in the area, along this proposed site there are various Holiday homes, Restaurants and Pubs all generating visitors to the Broads and surrounding area. Being the Proprietor of The Priory Farm Restaurant in St Olaves we are very concerned about the impact it will have on our customers, will they still enjoy sitting outside due to the air pollution and visiting the English Heritage site 'The Priory' which is next to the restaurant?
The actual Restaurant is set in a tranquil farm which has become an Animal Sanctuary, a safe haven for animals with space to graze and breathe clean air. What will happen to this environment?
Myself and many, many others worry about what will happen if this proposal should go through and STRONGLY OBJECT to the application.

Object

Representation ID: 91914

Received: 01/08/2018

Respondent: Ms V Wild Smith

Hi just wanted to say please keep fritton woods the way it is I've lived in the village off Belton all my live I'm 45 as a child my dad would always take us to these woods when I grew up and my children came along the woods had a big part off there upbringing now I have grandchildren my dad got Parkinson disease 15 years ago but still managed to go to fritton woods every day with his dog he passed away 5 years ago but his legacy lives on we still take our grandchildren there lots on Christmas day we go for a walk to remember our special times there with him I can't imagine what our lives would be like without our special woods please save them for our happy memories for the future thank you for reading this
Please save fritton woods

Object

Representation ID: 91918

Received: 02/08/2018

Respondent: Mr J Kent

Please refrain from the madness of destroying fritton woods for the sake of money. It is a ludicrous idea. Please think about the future of our planet and realise you will be responsible for destroying a beautiful part of it if these incredibly backward thinking plans go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 91923

Received: 01/08/2018

Respondent: Fritton Action Rescue Group

The forest site was used by the army for 'live firing' exercises during both world wars.
Any descending 'dud' shells or mortar bombs would penetrate some distance into the sandy ground and in time get buried even deeper by the accumulation of compacted pine needles. The lost ordnance items could well have, by now, become sensitised by 'sweating' of the explosive charges.
Some two years ago one came to light near Staith Road track. After a police guard overnight, and residents having been warned, the bomb was detonated in situ by Army Bomb Disposal.
We advise, on health and safety grounds, that prior to any extraction a comprehensive 'mine clearance' of the site be carried out.

Object

Representation ID: 91924

Received: 01/08/2018

Respondent: Fritton Action Rescue Group

To gain some physical insight into how stringent requirements for air quality are now becoming please see attached figure. It begs the question what if they spilled two handfuls or more?
Try as you might to contain it a little stray dust goes a very long way. A handful of dust (about 200 grams) Is all it takes to impart a hazardous illegal level of contamination* to the volume of air contained in over seven R101 airship sheds.
Under more stringent air quality regulations soon to be introduced the volume will equate with twelve R101 airship sheds (about a quarter of the air contained within the whole Waveney Forest between ground level and tree top height).
*National air quality objectives and European Directive limit and target values for the protection of human health. - no more than forty millionths of a gram of dust to each cubic metre of air.

Object

Representation ID: 91925

Received: 01/08/2018

Respondent: Fritton Action Rescue Group

The applicants may suggest that deep belts of trees (if they survive progressive wind felling from exposed margins) may screen residents from noisy quarry activities.
However, local experience is that since the clear felling of some timber stands the forest has been even quieter than before.
This is not surprising as with belts of trees the space between the canopy and the ground acts as a wave guide for audio frequency sound, carrying forwards and perpetuating sound which would otherwise spread and attenuate.
Nor would the tree trunks themselves have a significant screening effect as their total horizontal cross section comprises only 500th part of the superficial ground area below the trees.

Object

Representation ID: 91926

Received: 01/08/2018

Respondent: Fritton Action Rescue Group

It is commonly observed that when the finer siliceousious minerals are tipped into a container from a bucket the air displaced upwards lofts the fine particulates to many times the original drop height from which should the wind blow they are apt to overtop any practicable 'screening'

Object

Representation ID: 91927

Received: 01/08/2018

Respondent: Fritton Action Rescue Group

If the quarry is permitted there is robust scientific evidence # (drawn from bona fide scientific journals subject to peer review) to show that many mainly elderly villagers, some with existing respiratory problems, will be exposed to wholly unacceptable, dangerous levels of airborne quarry dust. Also if the forest is allowed to continue the carbon sequestered would allow the minerals to be road hauled many, many miles from more suitable site on a lower carbon budget.
Recent national concerns about the harmful effects of breathing airborne particulates together with revised standards for air quality have prompted our Action group to reappraise available scientific data on pit generated dust plumes.
Consideration of California University's statistically robust study near a sand and gravel facility (Appendix 1) yields the PM10 dust fall-out plot shown in Figure 1 (left hand half). It is to be noted that the furthest data point is only 745 metres from source.
Quite extraordinarily the applicants themselves cited the Benchmark study (Using human test subjects and unlikely to be repeated on ethical grounds) which covered exactly 800 to 1400 metres from source (Appendix 2). See PM10 dust fall-out plot figure 1 (right hand half). It is notable that, as might be expected, the two halves of figure 1 are entirely consistent with each other forming the classical dust fall-out plume, akin to that of a major meteorite impact, volcanic eruption or nuclear detonation, albeit on a much smaller scale. That these independently sourced plots are consistent is a very strong indication of their scientific validity. Consideration of the left hand half of figure 1 indicates that properties within 300 metres of the proposed pit will be exposed to PM10 dust concentrations of over 40 micrograms/m3, being in excess of European limits.
It is probable that at greater distances the remaining airborne dust concentration will comprise mainly of particles up to PM2.5, originally contained within the initial PM10 concentration. The heavier factions, as the applicants rightly state, will already have fallen out as 'nuisance dust' in a comparatively short distance down range, leaving the smaller particles to dominate both gravimetrically and (more health critically) numerically vastly so - Figure 2. This being so the max allowable limit of 25 micrograms/m3 for airborne PM2.5 shortly to come into force* indicates that properties within some 500 metres of the proposed pit will be exposed to airborne dust concentrations in excess of U.K and European limits.*
*National air quality objectives and European Directive limit and target values for the protection of human health.
It now seems appropriate to go on to review the right hand half of Figure 1. Before this can be done, however, a number of issues must be considered. The wholly siliceousious dust from the Fritton pit is unlikely to be any less harmful to the exposed Fritton residents than the dust from the open-cast coal workings was to the exposed test subjects of the Newcastle University study.
Although the open-cast dust incorporates a carboniferous faction as well as the faction generally attributable to siliceousious overburden # both factions are likely to be similarly hazardous, having mutually consistent air dispersal characteristics with both Carbon and Silicon atoms having six electrons in the outer shell where, for reactivity, it counts. Breathing airborne dust will have a much greater impact on exposed Fritton residents many of whom are elderly, some with respiratory problems, than on the young healthy test subjects of the Newcastle University study. In the latter study customary mitigation measures to limit dust emissions at source would be required for a realistic outcome and to accord with Coal Authority recommendations. #Winning coal from open cast mines generally entails the excavation of significant tonnages of siliceousious overburden to ensure safety and stability. Depending on the price of coal this may range up to twenty times the tonnage of coal extracted:- H.M Dept. of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (Coal Authority - Mines Licensing Dept.)
The right hand half of Figure 1 shows a PM10 concentration only a few micrograms/m3 above background. Despite this all determinations from 750 up to 1,400 metres from source were associated with an increase in respiratory related G.P. consultations of some 40% (Appendix 2). Placed within the context of the proposed Fritton quarry, assuming the applicants worked to the edge nearest to a given human receptor, which they would be entitled to do, the zone in which a markedly increased level of respiratory related G.P. consultations would be expected is as shown in Figure 3 (in-hatched portion). This includes a significant part of neighbouring St. Olaves. G.P. consultations could substantially exceed 40% because of the vulnerability of the mainly elderly population. Over 400 people reside within this zone. Even if, as an extreme measure of mitigation, the applicants were to work only a 100 metre wide strip on the edge of the site furthest from a given receptor, the zone of expected marked increased G.P. consultations would be shown in Figure 4 (un-hatched portion). Nearly 200 people reside within this zone. If the applicants were to work more than this the hazardous zone would be proportionately larger.
The Planning Environmental Division of H.M. Communities Dept. recognise that mineral extraction has an environmental impact and that planners should give very careful consideration to its likely effects on the surrounding area - and the views of local residents. Also L.A.s are now responsible for both the health and well being of their residents. Accordingly we ask that you reject the proposed application, amongst other reasons, to protect our mainly elderly, vulnerable, residents from dangerous levels of airborne particulates.
Also note that if the forest continued intact the carbon sequestered by the trees would enable the same mineral yield to be fetched many, many, miles by road from a more suitable site on a lower carbon budget!

Object

Representation ID: 91929

Received: 02/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs S Redstone

I object to this quarry being in the Waveney forest .my reasons being .loss of Amenity to local people, total destruction of the environment and harm to wildlife. light pollution and noise and totally unexceptable to have so many Lorrys everyday joining the a143 ,especially with such a dangerous bend in Fritton. it would totally spoil a quiet and peaceful village on the edge of the beautiful broads national park.

Object

Representation ID: 91930

Received: 06/08/2018

Respondent: Mr R Ceiley

Have lived in Fritton these past fourteen years,during that period have had two golden retrievers.
I enjoy walking my dog twice a day in Waveney forest.
During my walks i have seen many species of wild life including Snipe, Wrens, Green Woodpeckers, Jackdaws, Wood Pigeons, Sparrow Hawks, Deer, Dragon Flies, Grass Snakes, Slow Worms, Toads, frogs, Adders just to name a few.
One time i came across an Adder devouring a frog;

Object

Representation ID: 91932

Received: 06/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Imogen Radford

I'm writing to say that I strongly object to the very suggestion that Waveney Forest/Fritton Wood would be destroyed and replaced with an enormous gravel pit.

I welcome the conclusion that the site is unsuitable for allocation.

I urge you to recognise the major disadvantages of such a proposal and the severe impact of the loss of an extremely important area for people, for heritage, and for wildlife, and to reject this proposal as totally unsuitable and unacceptable.

I live in Dereham but visit the area from time to time.

I was very shocked to find out about this example of an investment company working with a mineral mining company to devastate a much loved local forest for profit. I visited the wood first a couple of years ago in spring and was very impressed. It was a beautiful, peaceful and pleasant place to walk, with the paths through the woodlands -- conifers with some birch trees and a few bird cherry trees in flower, and the reeds and Waveney River right next to it.

I find it very hard to understand why a popular wood, used by local people and visitors such as myself, and people from Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, is seen as dispensable. Woodlands are extremely important for recreation, particularly in an area where there isn't much choice -- agricultural land is not usually open apart from a few foot paths, and the seaside though lovely is a little way away and very busy especially in summer. Forests have a remarkable capacity to swallow up visitors -- there can be a lot of visitors but as the people are dispersed the forest remains peaceful.

Peaceful is not what the area will be if this is allowed to go ahead -- there will be continual noise from machinery, lorries, not to mention the travel disruption, and pollution.

I understand there is some important wildlife in the wood, and archaeological remains.

And it is within the Norfolk Broads, which makes it even more unbelievable that such a destructive proposal could even be considered.

You say that the site could also be subject to very good restoration scheme, offering significant ecological gains of wet woodland and lowland heath land were both included.

But people love the forest as it is now, and would no doubt use a restored woodland -- that doesn't need to be mineral extraction for the woodland to be restored. Part of the site is heathland and reed beds, but part of the restoration would need to be woodland for people to enjoy and for wildlife.

Would there be continued public access during extraction and even greater public access on restoration? If so, what sort of access will there be to a gravel pit, and what kind of pleasure can anyone take in such a visit? Losing a large area of beautiful forest which is enjoyable to walk through, and replacing it with a walk along the edge of a working gravel pits with enormous machinery, noise, dust and pollution -- I don't think that's much of a substitute. And increased access after restoration is a poor substitute -- what are people going to do in the meantime? Retaining an existing tree belt as suggested in the conclusion would not be enough.

I note that in your conclusions you list the disadvantages -- impact on Broads authority area, on wildlife, on woodland habitat, loss of access, noise and dust and archaeological impact.

I'm pleased that in the document you come to the conclusion that the scheme is unacceptable.

I urge you to recognise the major disadvantages of such a proposal and the severe impact of the loss of an extremely important area for people, for heritage, and for wildlife, and to reject this proposal as totally unsuitable and unacceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 91936

Received: 06/08/2018

Respondent: Ms L M Clark

In regard to the proposals to turn Fritton Woods into a quarry for mineral extraction is utterly dreadful and I think along the same lines as before it would be devastating to the wildlife, the village and the roads.
The health hazard is also great as Dr Van Stevens at the previous public meeting said in regards to the extraction at Fritton Woods would be a health hazard and dependant on the wind reaching Belton and Reedham and could cause all manner of illness and death.
The A143 is already horrendous in traffic and large lorries thundering through hair pin bends and tiny roads would be suicidal, besides the dust element with houses so close by.
The woods themselves have so much wildlife which are protected species, the list is endless and I could write reams on it.
The walks there are beautiful and there is so much talk on wildlife preservation by professional people who would be horrified at the thought of it being turned into a quarry would be a living nightmare.
I myself lived in Fritton for 14 years and would fight with my life to keep this enchanting wood alive in particular for the next generation.

I strongly object to any form of mineral extraction in Fritton Woods.

Object

Representation ID: 91944

Received: 01/08/2018

Respondent: Fritton Action Rescue Group

Changes since previous application
Summary
1. Re-surfacing of the A143 and speed reductions due to Fritton's 'speedwatch' have reduced traffic sounds and will render the noise impact of any quarry generated sound more intrusive.
2. Erosion of timber stands by progressive wind-felling of exposed margins shows that 'shelter belts' are not practicable.
3. Recurrent, intractable, underground fires demonstrate the extreme dryness of the forest terrain.
4. The potential danger of unexploded ordnance has been shown by the required service of Amy Bomb Disposal.
5. A channel has been cleared, with planning consent, to allow eels from the River Waveney to access Fritton Lake. This channel is potentially vulnerable to changes in the water table and runoff contamination.
6. Numerous vulnerable horses and cattle in a nearby animal sanctuary are now placed closer to potential sources of harmful particulates than hitherto.
If you require further details of the points above read on:
1. Changes to the A143
Since the previous quarry noise impact assessment the Fritton section of the A143 has been resurfaced with 'silent running' tarmac with a very noticeable (>20dB?) reduction in traffic noise. Also traffic speed and noise has been reduced by the actions of local Speedwatch. These changes will make the noise impact of quarry generated sound greater and more intrusive.
2. The vulnerability of screening 'belts'
Due to the general elevation of Waveney Forest relative to some surrounding terrain, and due in particular to the broad fetch between Haddiscoe and the forest, there is a significant level of wind exposure. Also, because of the sandy nature of the soil, trees are not firmly rooted, and so particularly likely to be felled by the wind.
In recent years mature stands of timber have been harvested by clear felling prior to replanting. Single lines of trees were let along one section of the western edge of the forest and close by forest lodge. In both cases these trees were felled by the wind within a matter of days.
Since the clear fell harvesting of the mature timber stands, remaining stands have suffered progressive erosion by the wind felling of trees along their exposed margins. These losses already total upwards of sixty trees with the remaining trees becoming vulnerable, as they in turn, become exposed on the margin.
Local experience indicates that further wind felling is likely whenever maximum gust speed (measured 10 metres above the ground) exceeds 50 knots. This usually happens several times a year.
3. Dryness of the site terrain
In the last few years numerous fires have occurred. Many of these penetrated below ground, some requiring multiple visits by the Fire Brigade to finally extinguish them.
Some five years ago one such fire was attended by over ten different fire appliances, needed two separate 200mm hose lines totalling 1.4km in length drawing from the river Waveney, and still took longer to extinguish then the Great Fire of London (four days).
Since that time Fire Brigades have held training exercises in the forest which should enable them to deal more effectively with future serious outbreaks.
4. Unexploded ordnance
The forest site was used by the army for 'live firing' exercises during both world wars.
Any descending 'dud' shells or mortar bombs would penetrate some distance into the sandy ground and in time get buried even deeper by the accumulation of compacted pine needles. The lost ordnance items could well have, by now, become sensitised by 'sweating' of the explosive charges.
Some two years ago one such same to light near the Staithe Road track. After having a policy guard overnight, and residents having been warned, the bomb was detonated in situ by Army Bomb Disposal.
It is advised, on health and safety grounds, that prior to any excavation, a comprehensive 'mine clearance' of the site be carried out.
5. Eel channel - As instigated by Lord Somerleyton.
6. Animal Sanctuary
We previously warned of the dangerous effect of particulates affecting not only the villagers but the horses at Redwings horse sanctuary at Redwings if the wind was from the west. Since the last application Hillside animal sanctuary has moved in to the west and southwest immediately adjacent to the woods boundary and horses and cattle (many hundreds) some with special needs are even closer to the quarry. Many of these are old abused and delicate animals in need of quiet sanctuary not the noise dust and disturbance of a massive quarry.

Object

Representation ID: 91945

Received: 06/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Rowland Dunn

Please be advised that I OBJECT to The Waveney Forest [ Min38 ] Being turned into a Gravel pit for the following reasons:-

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 [ 76 ] 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/wildlife-countryside/rddteam/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) [i]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.

[ii] It is doubtful that cutting down so many trees is in the Paris Agreement on Climate change

3) This would go completely against the "Clean Air Strategy 2018" which Michael Gove MP is Championing

4) Will Norfolk County Council Guarantee that the atmospheric emissions and air pollution, such as Nitrogen Oxides e.t.c., do not cause problems for humans and wildlife.

5) You will not be able to move the plant life and Fungi.

6)The "Pond Life" in the tributaries of the River Waveney, of which some is a food source for other wildlife would also suffer

7) 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.

8) 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.

9) (i) The habitat of the VERTIGO MOULINSIANA - Snail - would be destroyed and this is protected by European Law.

(ii) The habitat of the Vertigo Angustior would also be threatened

10) The Forest is home to Slow Worms that are protected under the UK Wildlife Countryside Act 1981 as a Priority species

11) The Forest is home to Bats which are protected
Bats and the Law
In Britain all bat species and their roosts are legally protected, by both domestic and international legislation.
This means you will be committing a criminal offence if you:
1. Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat
2. Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats
3. Damage or destroy a bat roosting place (even if bats are not occupying the roost at the time)
4. Possess or advertise/sell/exchange a bat (dead or alive) or any part of a bat
5. Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a bat roost

12) 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

13) 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.

14) The 'Trunk' roads around the area will not be able to handle the increased heavy duty traffic

15) 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

16) Access to the specific area will be limited and difficult.

17) 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
No plant, machinery, scaffolding, or personnel should encroach within the safety zone of the overhead conductor lines.
Take care when moving ladders, elevators, irrigation pipes or other long objects. They should be moved only when horizontal or in their lowest position.
Never reduce the clearance under overhead electricity lines by dumping or tipping waste material; erecting structures, buildings or hay stacks; or creating storage areas under lines.

18) 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 .

19) There will be a further erosion of the Suffolk Sandling Heath

20) There will be pollution to the River Waveney

21) The "sub-aquafa" would be contaminated

22) There are Unique Relic's from both WW I and WW II that need to be preserved

23) There is the ancient Bell Hill Battery

24) 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

25) 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

26) 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.

27) [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

28) 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.

29) Other pits in the area [ Browston / Burgh Castle & Raveningham ] to not make it viable for another pit in my opinion

30) I understand that the quality of the sand is not that good

31) 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.

32) In March 2009, it was reported that the whole of the Broads are in jeopardy due to climate change; this will exacerbate the situation.

33) 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.

34) English Heritage are likely to get an S.M.S. [ Special Monumental Site ] upon at least part of the forest

35) 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.

36) 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.

37) Access from a new entrance on the A.143 from a field next to The Warren would be unsuitable and dangerous because it would be on a hill and the entry and exit sightline is not sufficient. A suggested right turn only from said entrance would cause no end of traffic problems and delays.

38) 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.

39) 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

40) Great Yarmouth Borough Council have objected to the destruction of the Forest for use as a Gravel pit

41) Fritton & St. Olaves Parish Councillors have objected to the destruction of the Forest for use as a Gravel pit


42) Local Papers recorded Norfolk County Council being handed petition's with signatures in excess of 15,000 against the proposal at a previous attempt.

43) 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.

44) It would have an adverse effect on tourism that The Somerleyton Estate is trying to promote to sell its Lodges

45) Valuable Reed Beds would be destroyed

46) Invaluable Public Footpaths & Rights of way would need to be destroyed.

47) It would have a detrimental effect on Local Tourism

48) 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.

49) There would be serious dust pollution over a vast area

50) Noise levels would be dramatically increased to excessive levels for residents.

51) Security lights would spoil the night sky, have an adverse effect upon the wildlife and disturb the villagers near the proposed activity.

52) Serious pollution will be encountered from the 40 plus vehicles per day together the with the ancillary machinery.

53) People in the area who already have health problems would be adversely affected in particular those with the various types of breathing problems

54) Petitions against the Gravel Pit received over 20,000 signatures

55) 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.

56) There are several schools on &/or near the A.143 which would be vunerable

57) 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.

58) Due to air turbulence over the Waveney Forest the Tree Screening would not be effective

59) It would create an additional fire hazard due to the machinery being used in the tinder dry conditions within the forest

60) There would be a danger of serious silting of the river Waveney with water being pumped into it from the forest.

61) Debris from the site which would be deposited on the A.143 initially by the lorries would be dangerous to other road users.

62) The additional H.G.V., traffic would result in increased erosion of the road and the verges

63) Discharge from the additional H.G.V., traffic is inevitable; this will get washed into the water courses cause silt ingresses into the water courses before finding its way into Fritton Lake which supplies drinking water to the area

64) There is some doubt if there are any suitable receptor sites in Norfolk

65) It would have a detrimental effect on the visual impact on the Norfolk Broads and in particular areas covered by the Broads Authority thus having an impact upon tourism for the river traffic.

66) The National Parks & Countryside Act of 1949 ; The Wildlife & Countryside Act of 1981 and the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 all need to be taken into consideration

67) St. Olaves Bridge is classified as a 'Listed Building' and as such is protected.

68) Unexploded ordinance was found in the forest a few years ago and there is a suspicion that here is more to be found. This would present a danger to workers and residents.

69) The recent high temperatures, which are projected to be a regular occurrence, are having an adverse affect upon the road. To add a further 50+ lorries would have an adverse effect upon the road causing problems for other road users; in particular the Emergency Services and Local Public Transport.


70) Barn Owls and Firecrests are protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act.

71) A team of scientists, led from Queen Mary University of London
Regular exposure to even low levels of air pollution may cause changes to the heart similar to those in the early stages of heart failure, experts say.

We can then counter what has allegedly come from the Aggregate Company.

1) They cannot seem to make up their mind if they are going to dampen or wet the excavation.
(i) If they leave the situation dry then they will be polluting a vast area with the dust not only when they excavate it but when they dump it in the lorries.
(ii) If they wet it they then have the likelyhood that they will pollute the River Waveney not to mention the underground water table which will then seep into Fritton Lake which is used as a reservoir to supply the local drinking water with the waste and debris from the machinery and lorries e.t.c.
2) When do they expect to return the area to its former glory with 'enhanced recreational activities' because when they have exhausted the initial area they will then apply for another tranche and so on and so on so the area will still be a gravel pit in 40/50 years time. Just think of all the lost revenue for the Norfolk tourism as a result of the eye-sore.
3) What do they propose to do about the mud and debris from the lorries on the A.143 / A.12 / A.47 e.t.c.. And what will Norfolk County Council do about enforcing the clean up. Perhaps nothing except put the residents Council Tax up to cover the costs.
4) How can the residents be assured that an ecological survey be IMPARTIAL when it is supplied by the aggregate company. You can bet it will say what the aggregate company wants it so say.
5) Working periods of 07:00 to 18:00 during week days for the lorries and machinery would have a detrimental effect on the lives of the residents. Then what will happen during the periods of short daylight. It is expected that they will have artificial lighting which will also have a detrimental effect upon the residents.

Object

Representation ID: 91949

Received: 07/08/2018

Respondent: Ms E Learner

As a resident of St Olaves, I wish to register my objection to the proposed quarry in Waveney Forest. The grounds for my objection are:
* Loss of amenity for walking and enjoying nature, peace and tranquillity this being the only wooded area in the locality.

* Obvious increase of traffic flow through St Olaves by HGVs, staff and visitors. There is currently a daily back up of vehicles due to the current volume of traffic travelling through the village over the bridge.

* There is little to no regard to the speed limit by heavy commercial vehicles now, particularly early morning/late evening.

* Possible effect on local wells. For some this is the only supply of fresh water. This proposed quarry combined with other areas of current development in the locality and the granted planning of 64 homes on New Road, Belton could further disrupt the supply and water quality of wells/reservoirs.

* Noise pollution from quarry.

* Dust pollution and health issues this could cause.

* Light pollution - the villages actively discourage lighting; as evidenced by no street lighting.

* Obvious destruction of wildlife habitat.

* Loss of World War II heritage

We must do our upmost to protect these open and wooded areas from unnecessary destruction for future generations and would hope our local County Council would protect our local amenities from companies outside of East Anglia for a scheme that offers little to zero benefit for the local economy and population.

Object

Representation ID: 91950

Received: 19/07/2018

Respondent: Ms L Hughes

I object to Brett's application on MIN38.

Object

Representation ID: 91969

Received: 31/07/2018

Respondent: The Somerleyton Estate

Agent: Evolution Town Planning

We are responding to the current consultation on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review. This consultation response is made on behalf of The Somerleyton Estate and concerns proposed Mineral Extraction Site MIN38. MIN38 is located on a site known as Waveney Forest near Fritton. The Somerleyton Estate object to this potential minerals extraction site for the reasons set out below.

Our client owns and manages the Fritton Lake Holiday Resort - a significant and high quality tourist destination but also an environmental project-in-progress through its re-wilding programme and other related environmental and ecological measures. Fritton Lake is only some 400m from the proposed extraction site at its nearest point with a bulk of the extraction happening within one kilometre of the main body of the lake.

Our client wishes to object the potential minerals extraction site on the grounds of heritage, ecological impact, highways, noise and pollution.

Heritage
We understand from the Sites Assessment part of the Initial Consultation document that the minerals planning authority have already concluded that "The site is considered to be unsuitable for allocation" and this is due to harm to the significance of the Waveney Forest WW2 Military Training Area.

The Somerleyton Estate support this position and would reiterate that the NPPF refers to 'Facilitating the Sustainable Use of Minerals' but this site cannot be sustainable if, as the minerals planning authority have already recognised, the harm to the significance of the heritage assets cannot be mitigated if the heritage assets itself is completely destroyed.

The minerals planning authority may already have access to sufficient information on the history and therefore the significance of the Waveney Forest Military Camp (also known as the Fritton/Somerleyton Auxiliary Unit Patrol and Operational Base) but for ease of reference we have enclosed copies of entries from the Norfolk Heritage Explorer and (because there were no images on the Heritage Explorer website) we have provided information from a website which reinforces much of the content of the Heritage Explorer website.

Also included with this letter are records from the Broads Authority related to previous local greenspace designation assessment but more importantly because of the related references to parts of the Waveney Forest site being locally listed by The Broads Authority.

Ecology
The ecological assessment undertaken as set out in the Initial Consultation document is noted however Norfolk County Council need to be aware of the environmental sensitivity of the Fritton Lake site and the recent efforts of the owners and statutory agencies to improve the lake for the benefit of internationally endangered species. The County Council should satisfy themselves that mineral extraction at MIN38 poses zero threat to the environmental integrity of Fritton Lake.

Enclosed with this letter is information concerning the Estate's conservation efforts in and around Fritton Lake and the Waveney Forest area aimed at supporting biodiversity and critically endangered species including the European Eel. This work has been partnered by EDF, the Environment Agency and the Sustainable Eel Group (a Europe wide conservation and science led organisation working with partner bodies and individuals to accelerate the eel's recovery).

Highways
The Somerleyton Estate is concerned about the quantity and nature of the traffic movements associated with a quarry. A significant draw for tourists to this area is the quintessentially peaceful Broads environment. This is something the minerals planning authority need to bear in mind when further considering the acceptability of this site and whether it is just simply located in the wrong place.

We note from the consultation document that "the proposed highway access is considered to be suitable by the Highway Authority, subject to a right hand turn lane on the A143. Inset below is a Google StreetView image of the area in which the consultation document indicates the access will be; "a junction approximately opposite the access to PRoW Fritton and St. Olaves BRS" i.e. part of the local rights of way network ley to local tourism and public access to the countryside.
It is also difficult to see how a 'right hand turn lane' would fit in this location without having to widen the road with the resultant loss of the wooded embankments characteristic of this and other roads in the area.

Noise and Pollution
Again we note the content of the site assessment and the probability that distances between the mineral extraction sites and Fritton Lake are probably sufficient to reduce the chances of impacts arising from noise and dust. The Somerleyton Estate asks the minerals planning authority to satisfy themselves that this is truly the case and it may be necessary to consult further with relevant consultees.

However this is not the principal concern of The Estate. The Somerleyton Estate are concerned that, so far, the site assessment does not adequately consider the below ground linkages between MIN38 and Fritton Lake. The consultation document acknowledges both sites are within the same catchment but this relates to above-ground mechanisms. We assume, but cannot tell from the site assessment, that the sites are connected via groundwater to the extent that activity in the proposed Mineral site MIN38 could adversely affect Fritton Lake.

For the reasons set out above the Somerleyton Estate asks Norfolk County Council to consider this matter in detail and to obtain the necessary expert guidance from the local flood authority and the Environment Agency as necessary in order to fully understand the hydrological relationship between this potential extraction site and the highly environmentally sensitive Fritton Lake.

Object

Representation ID: 91971

Received: 19/07/2018

Respondent: Ms C Bell

I object to Brett's application MIN 38.
Comment: Don't do it

Object

Representation ID: 91972

Received: 06/08/2018

Respondent: Fritton with St Olaves parish council

These are the main objections that we cited last year and still apply:
* Loss of the only woodland amenity for Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft.
* Biodiversity loss throughout the forest.
* Unique Archaeology loss of the newly discovered resistance hides.
* Water: Effect of development on Fritton Lake municipal water supply.
* Regular flooding of a large area of site.
* Desecration of the Broads Authority National Park.
* Effect on European protected species.
* Roads: No access available and A 143 already overloaded.
* Noise and dust producing property blight
* Loss of forest and carbon footprint unbalance
* 20,000 signed our petition, last time We have not petitioned this time but hundreds of people have supported us on media this time around.
* There was no technical or financial aid for a tiny village to compete with the might of a determined national mineral company.
These are the areas we are expecting to raise in addition to all of the above in respect of the new proposal.
The close proximity of the residential area with the inconvenience of:
* The dreadful dust effects on property and health 175 metres from New Road is nothing short of criminal. The tree screen there is bare, no leaves at all (see photos).
* Ionisation of dust particles buy the high tension cables that cross the entire area these bypass defences and stick in your lungs and would affect horses at Redwings.
Since the last application a new horse sanctuary has moved in to the land just below the site to the southwest Hillside Animal Sanctuary expects horse numbers to reach 1000 shortly with old and horses with special needs. These horses will drink from the lower dykes and be susceptible to run off from above. A mineral quarry is hardly a quiet sanctuary.
The lower marsh dykes have recently been cleared out at great expense to facilitate migration of eels from the river 'Waveney to Fritton Lake again there must be a run off concern
* Access route is upwind and adjoining the busy children's New Road playground.
* In five years it will be mandatory to adhere to the European limits for dust PM2.5s this will effectively close the mineral activities here. Bretts have no chance of having 22 years of extraction.
* Noise: 100 metres is insufficient to be a noise barrier. No mention of the noisy grading activities at all.
* Security lights for the compound will ruin our night sky in the area.
* Threat of diggers breaking through the artesian well cao with effects on local wells and Fritton Lake.
* The tree screens will not work due to turbulence and eddies over the forest. (See K. Nunn paper).
* 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 recently. Average over 30 per year.
* The Broads Authority has spoken up to protect their National Park a mineral pit plus draglines and commercial machinery would affect tourism for the Broads and Fritton Lake Estate and Caldecott Hall both trying to promote their new holiday lodges.
* The number of HG Vs on the A 143 would increase by up to 50 more per day it is at present jammed up constantly.
* The depot and access is adjacent residential properties and near the busy New Road children's playground.
* The access road junction would destroy a lovely overhead tree canopy and due to the slope sand would collect and be a danger to motorcycles.
* The congestion and dangers on the A 143 where not all accidents are recorded. Local opinion disagreeing with Highway's stated position. This is from real people living adjacent to the road.
* Great Yarmouth Council agree this will not alter until we get a third river crossing.
* Our Parish Council has resisted noise and light pollution for 30 years separating us from Great Yarmouth, this would destroy our villages as we know them.
* The area floods more readily than Brett Suggested and the Staithe area has no embankment protection.
* Article 8 of the Human Rights Act should ensure that we have the right for quiet enjoyment of our home.
* Planning blight house values down. Several houses blighted now.
* We already have had poor water pressure and sewage trouble for the last five years. They admit to expecting to add to this.
* Suggested wetlands will go stagnant breed mosquitoes and encourage flooding.
* Forestry Commission is asking for more trees to sequestrate carbon not less.
* Suggested action area covers the resistance hides and would destroy them.
* A number of asthma sufferers in the villages (13 in New Road area alone).
* It was stated previously that Norfolk had now sufficient minerals without the unacceptable areas.
* New government policy should protect the National Park and take green local opinion more into consideration. We have plenty of that