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

To whom it may concern, my family and I are appalled at the thought of the woods being vandalised for yet another gravel pit.
I would have thought that conservation of this area is important to the area and living locally we have enough traffic on these narrow roads without the addition of heavy noisy lorries-even more pollution to the area .
We also have many species of animals ,birds,deer etc in the woods at present & if the Acle Straight cannot be widened because of disruption to wild species then I think it's disgraceful the planners even considering any applications for a gravel pit in such a beautiful area

Re: Fritton Woods

I am writing to strongly object to the application to turn Fritton Woods into a sand and gravel quarry.

My family have lived in the village for over 50 years and have always enjoyed walking in the woods with the wildlife and the historical element.
There are not many areas of natural beauty left in this area for people to enjoy and I think it would be awful for the public to be deprived of this.

There are horse sanctuaries in Fritton/St Olaves, what effect will the extraction have on the water in the dykes that the horses may have to drink.

I am worried as to what the effect will be on my breathing due to all the dust from any extraction work if the quarry goes ahead.

Regarding the roads I am concerned as to whether they are man enough to take another 50 or more aggregate lorries, the Fritton bend is tight at the best of times with lorries having to come over the white line. Also if there is a new junction onto the A143 and the lorries go towards St Olaves is the bridge strong enough to take all the extra weight?

I work in Beccles and sometimes the traffic stretches all the way from the St Olaves bridge to Caldecott Hall, with extra lorries this is only going to get worse.
A 20 minute drive home can take an hour due to congestion.

I could add many points but I think that the main reasons for my objection are:
1. The loss of the natural beauty site used by many people
2. The historical aspect that needs to be remembered not flattened by machinery
3. The health conditions of people and animals due to the dust particles
4. The roads and bridges not being substantial enough to take the extra lorries

We live on the A143, in a cottage o the border between Fritton and St Olaves. We have lived here for 38 years and our children grew up here enjoying Fritton Woods and the lovely countryside around the village of Fritton. One of our sons returned to Fritton, bought a house and has raised his family here too, so the area is very close to our hearts. There are many reasons to object to this proposed quarry in Waveney Forest, most of which are covered in the attached leaflet. However, our main worry is the vibration our house may suffer, due to the large number of extra heavy lorries that will be using our road. The A143 was recently resurfaced which has helped a lot. Prior to this we did suffer a lot of vibration, and if these extra heavy lorries, up to 50 a day are to be allowed, we are concerned the problem will return as the new road surface will degrade more quickly.
I object to Brett's application on MIN38.
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 B1074 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.

We agree that this site is unsuitable. In addition to the reason given it is an area used much by residents as an area of woodland amenity - this would be good to maintain, particularly when there are other suitable sites for extraction which do not have such public access.

I am writing to make it known that I am strongly opposed to the Fritton Wood/ Waveney Forest becoming a gravel pit.

Myself and my family have for over 35 years enjoyed the woods for either walking,dog walking,horse riding or for research for school projects and continue to use it to this day.

There would be several disadvantages to this proposed scheme for example the wonderful array of wildlife, flora and fauna and the major disruption to a beautiful peaceful area which is close to the river and Norfolk Broads. Not to mention the associated history of the area to the WW1 and WW2.

Then we have the proposed fifty or so lorries coming in and out of the site everyday on a small country lane and then only being allowed to turn right! I cannot see that that route is a route to Great Yarmouth, unless they have to take a left turn and go through the beautiful villages eg Somerleyton causing more heavy traffic on small country lanes.

I strongly disapprove of this proposal and I cannot see that the company proposing will perform a non -biased survey!

To all concerned and care for The Hillside Sanctuary and Fritton Woods.
We are a charitable Nation this is our Home Land so why should we allow thoughtless others to rob us, and ruin the English Woodlands and Nature ?
The British Nation (and our Queen) are planting Tree's all over our Islands to replace some of what is already lost, the Animals at Hillside placed there in peace to recover; any interruption to Animals, Nature and our Woodlands is thoughtless and not acceptable !

As residents of Fritton, whose property adjoins the woods.We are very concerned about the gravel pit application. All of the previous objections are the same as last time, including the Health issues. We have found the amount of traffic coming through the A143 seems to have doubled. The hundreds of new properties on the Bluebell Meadow development have made an impact, with many more to come.The amount of extra traffic using the new road from the A47 joining the A143 is making a huge difference. This is already a very dangerous road, The Haddicoe bends must be one of the most dangerous roads in Norfolk ,now we have long queues forming both ways to get over the bridge at St. Olaves. We cannot have more large lorries coming onto this road. This whole area is holiday related .Norfolk must have more places for a quarry that will not ruin all these villages in such a lovely part of the Broads. thank you for your attention.

Good Afternoon, I have just read in our local paper(Lowestoft Journal) about the proposed development of Waveney Forrest/Fritton woods, I would like to object in the strongest possible way to this destruction to extremely important wildlife habitat,I have in front of me The Natural History of Waveney Forest which details the number of Birds and other wildlife which would be affected if such a criminal act were to go ahead, we must do all we can to stop it.

Thank you for your letter of 26 June 2018 notifying me that my address is located within 250 metres of a proposed mineral extraction site currently being considered as part of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review.

I have reviewed the plans and whilst I appreciate the need to provide a large amount of silica sand for future use in Norfolk, I do not believe that the proposed site at Waveney Forest, Fritton is suitable. I have many different reasons for this belief but have limited my response to only 10 for the purposes of expediency:

1. Risk of dust to human health
This extraction is within 250 metres of my home and within a residential area. It poses a health risk to me and my family. I also have family members with asthma and chronic breathing problems. If this extraction goes ahead, they would not be able to visit severely affecting my family life.

2. Noise
Although the Roundhouse is secluded we do hear a significant amount of traffic noise from the Beccles Road, the train at Haddiscoe and the Bell Public House events. These are at considerable distance from the house and therefore, machinery within 250 metres will be extremely noisy and will adversely affect our quality of life due to noise pollution.

3. Services and access to the Roundhouse
The proposed access route is expected to be go over the track that leads to our property. Underneath this track, all major service cables are currently in use; electricity, water and telephone. It is extremely likely that these services may be damaged or cut off which is very concerning to us. Access to our property would also be negatively affected as the proposed access route goes over our track and would make it difficult for us to go out. There is no other access to our property rendering us potentially trapped at different times of the day when lorries would be in transit.

4. Traffic
Traffic levels are already high on the Beccles Road particularly with people going to Norwich for work. I am often delayed at the bridge at St Olaves trying to cross and this would be exacerbated by lorries and other machinery if the extraction goes ahead. Turning right out of New Road on to the Beccles Road is very challenging and traffic is often speeding which has led to near misses and accidents. The introduction of large gravel lorries would increase traffic and the potential for serious accident. If the lorries and equipment are brought into Fritton from the Bradwell direction there is a house very close to the turn in to the village which risks being hit already by large vehicles. St Olaves Bridge is also a single lane historical bridge and this would risk damage due to the weight and frequency of the equipment and lorries. Emergency service access is also likely to be adversely affected putting the lives of locals and tourists at risk due to delays.

5. World War History and Archaeological Remains
If this extraction goes ahead there is the potential loss of extremely important bunkers from World War 2, relics from World War 1 and also other remains archaeological remains as you have outlined in your review of the proposed site. I believe these should be protected as part of our national heritage and destroying them would be disrespectful to those who gave their lives during conflicts. I also think that archaeological treasures should be protected for future generations.

6. Wildlife
Living in the woods, I am very aware of the huge amount of wildlife and insects that are living in the woods. We have high numbers of bees, dragon flies, newts, butterflies in addition to many other types of mammals and birds. More recently we have seen buzzards flying over the woods and believe that the woods are essential to ensure that the biodiversity of the area is maintained. We also have bats that circle the house in the evening. It is well known that the numbers of insects including bees are in decline and the destruction of the woods would make this worse. We have also seen rare dragonflies in our garden including the Norfolk Hawker which is rare and protected.

7. Exercise and activity
Great Yarmouth is already known for its low rate of participation in exercise nationally. Taking away the woods will mean there will be no places for local people from Gorleston and Great Yarmouth to walk with their dogs, run or even ride bicycles. Waveney Forest offers a space for activity that is used regularly by locals and without this space there would be nowhere for families to walk or spend time having fun.

8. Tourism
Our local economy is highly dependent on jobs and activity related to tourism. If this quarry goes ahead it will have a negative impact on the River Waveney, the trade for local pubs, guest houses, the Boat Hire at Haddiscoe, Fritton Lake and the wider area. The Broads is a beautiful area that needs to be protected and this quarry would be within the park or certainly very close. When we purchased the house a year ago, it was purchased as being in the Great Yarmouth Borough. However upon moving in, we had a visit from the Broads Authority Planning Officer who has now confirmed that our home is in the National Park. This must mean that the Quarry is either in or very close to the Park too and this is likely to have a negative effect on the enjoyment and pleasure of tourists and locals too.

9. Horse Sanctuaries
We have two charities working with horses that are very close to the prospective site; Redwings and Hillside Animal Sanctuary. These horses have been moved to the area for peaceful retirement or following poor treatment. The introduction of a quarry will add noise and breathing difficulties for them.

10. Village life
Having a quarry in the middle of our village would also have a very negative impact on village life. I am getting to know my neighbours and have found them to be lovely but in the majority of cases more elderly. The impact of having a quarry with many lorries and dust each day is likely to affect their health and pleasure in retirement. The village is seeking to support elderly and isolated people by having events which are well attended at the village Hall. If the quarry goes ahead this positive support for the local community and supporting each other is likely to be negatively impacted.

I am very concerned about the proposal and would be willing to give many more reasons in opposition to it if this would be helpful. Please could you confirm receipt of my letter by email and provide me with details of what is the next stage in this process.

Thank you for your letter of 26 June 2018 notifying me that my address is located within 250 metres of a proposed mineral extraction site currently being considered as part of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review.

I have reviewed the plans and whilst I appreciate the need to provide a large amount of silica sand for future use in Norfolk, I do not believe that the proposed site at Waveney Forest, Fritton is suitable. For the reasons listed below;

1. Risk of dust to human health
This extraction is within 250 metres of my home and within a residential area. It poses a health risk to me and my family. I also have family members with asthma and chronic breathing problems. If this extraction goes ahead, they would not be able to visit severely affecting my family life.

2. Noise
Although the Roundhouse is secluded we do hear a significant amount of traffic noise from the Beccles Road, the train at Haddiscoe and the Bell Public House events. These are at considerable distance from the house and therefore, machinery within 250 metres will be extremely noisy and will adversely affect our quality of life due to noise pollution.

3. Services and access to the Roundhouse
The proposed access route is expected to be go over the track that leads to our property. Underneath this track, all major services currently run; electricity, water and telephone. It is extremely likely that these services may be damaged or cut off which is very concerning to us. Access to our property would also be negatively affected as the proposed access route goes over our track and would make it difficult for us to go out. There is no other access to our property rendering us potentially trapped at different times of the day when lorries would be in transit.

4. Traffic
Traffic levels are already high on the Beccles Road particularly with people going to Norwich for work. I am often delayed at the bridge at St Olaves trying to cross and this would be exacerbated by lorries and other machinery if the extraction goes ahead. Turning right out of New Road on to the Beccles Road is very challenging and traffic is often speeding which has led to near misses and accidents. The introduction of large gravel lorries would increase traffic and the potential for serious accident. If the lorries and equipment are brought into Fritton from the Bradwell direction there is a house very close to the turn in to the village which risks being hit already by large vehicles. St Olaves Bridge is also a single lane historical bridge and this would risk damage due to the weight and frequency of the equipment and lorries. Emergency service access is also likely to be adversely affected putting the lives of locals and tourists at risk due to delays.

5. World War History
If this extraction goes ahead there is also the potential loss of extremely important bunkers from World War 2, relics from World War 1 and also other remains archaeological remains as you have outlined in your review of the proposed site. I believe these should be protected as part of our national heritage and destroying them would be disrespectful to those who gave their lives in the way and would

6. Wildlife
Living in the woods, I am very aware of the huge amount of wildlife and insects that are living in the Woods. We have high numbers of bees, dragon flies, newts, butterflies in addition to many other types of mammals and birds. More recently we have seen buzzards flying over the woods and believe that the woods are essential to ensure that the biodiversity of the area is maintained. We also have bats that circle the house in the evening. It is well known that the numbers of insects including bees are in decline and the destruction of the woods would make this worse. We have also seen rare dragonflies in our garden including the Norfolk Hawker which is rare and protected.

7. Tourism
Our local economy is highly dependent on jobs and activity related to tourism. If this quarry goes ahead it will have a negative impact on the River Waveney, the trade for local pubs, guest houses, the Boat Hire at Haddiscoe, Fritton Lake and the wider area. The Broads are a beautiful area that need to be protected and this quarry would be within the park or certainly very close. When we purchased the house a year ago, it was purchased as being in the Great Yarmouth Borough. However upon moving in, we had a visit from the Broads Authority Planning Officer who has now confirmed that our home is in the National Park. This must mean that the Quarry is either in or very close to the Park too and this is likely to have a negative effect on the enjoyment and pleasure of tourists.

8. Horse Sanctuaries
We have two charities working with horses that are very close to the prospective site; Redwings and Hillside Animal Sanctuary. These horses have been moved to the area for peaceful retirement or following poor treatment. The introduction of a quarry will add noise and breathing difficulties for them.

Please could you confirm receipt of my letter by email and provide me with details of what is the next stage in this process.

We concur with the arguments put forward by Fritton & St Olaves Parish Council Action Group which relate to the deleterious effects that such a plan would have on the health and welfare of the local population when there is no evidence of the need to increase the mineral bank identified by the Council.
Indeed it is clear that there is plentiful supply of suitable minerals in current and potential quarry sites and the sea that do not impinge on people and wildlife without reconsidering such as Waveney Forest now or in the future and owners and developers should be told not to apply again.

Object to any development of Fritton woods - its regarded as a community asset especially located so close to the Angles Way. There is significant historical significance with the wartime training as well as the old railway line which can still be traced through the woods.
There are no other areas of woodland/heathland within easy access of Great Yarmouth which are
available to be enjoyed. Increased heavy traffic joining the A143 will be dangerous and further delay the rush hour congestion

I am writing to you to register my extremely strong objections to the above site being allocated as a possible venue for sand and gravel extraction. There are many reasons for this as follows.


1. This forest or Fritton Woods as it is often known as ,is beautiful ,well loved and well used. It is the only green space for walking close to the conurbations of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston, and is particularly so for dog walkers now deprived of using the beach.

2.There are two areas within the new application,( which was refused last time), one is completely within the Broads Authority area ,the other also impinges on it.

If the quarry goes ahead it will have a disastrous impact on wildlife with biodiversity loss throughout the forest.

3.I believe that the quarry workings would have an adverse affect on navigation with rundown to the river Waveney and so polluting it even further. The river between St. Olaves and Burgh Castle runs between Haddiscoe Island and Fritton and Belton marshes and is a quiet and peaceful stretch with a delightful view of the forest. These assets would be totally lost by the noise and light pollution of a quarry.

4. There are two Heritage Assets within the proposed site. These are listed with the B.A. and are recognised as contributing to the special character of the area. There are also several WW2 underground hides within Gt. Yarmouth Borough part of the site which are considered to be of special importance.

5.Very many rescued (hundreds) ,with more to come, of old horses are housed next to the proposed boundary. As with the people living near by these would be very severely affected by both air pollution and also the run down of water into the dykes' that they drink from.

6. The proposed new road means that all of up to 50 lorries per day will have to turn right. This will not only destroy a beautiful canopy of yet more trees, but also negates the main reason for considering the site, namely its proximity to Gt Yarmouth and Gorleston building sites. Where will these lorries go to.?

7. Somerleyton Estate has applied for and been granted planning permission to clear some dykes so that eels and elvers can migrate from the river to Fritton Lake ,this very positive action would be severely compromised by run down, disturbance and pollution.

8.Both the Broads Authority and the Broads Society are strongly opposed to this site being allocated.

I am sure that I have missed out some reasons, but feel that those listed above should be given very serious consideration, and that this site should NOT be allocated.

Dear Sirs on this last day of the consultancy I thought I would send you a few of the thoughts off Dr. R Van Steenis who represented us last time an application came in for the Waveney forest.He was one of the worlds foremost experts in dust and diesel particulates.He had come from Australia where he had studied the effects of particulates upon cattle and horses in particular.At the time he was a lone voice stated that 2.5particulates were more of a problem than 10.0 ones .He has since been vindicated and the emphasis five years on is upon 2.5 particulates just as he proficised.Unfortunately he has passed on in the meantime but his writings and speeches are there for all to see and we make no apologies for using them in defence of our views on MIN38.

I Hope this controversial woodland site will be rejected at the beginning as there are so many more suitable sites in the running.

I am objecting to the proposed quarrying in the Waveney Forest at Fritton. If you walk through our village, where there are pavements , they are very narrow and this makes the walker feel unsafe especially when larger vehicles go past. We have had an incident recently where an elderly villager was clipped by a passing vehicle and had to helped to his feet by another villager. A greater number of more regular lorries, estimated at up to 50 vehicles a day, would make walking through the village feel very hazardous. These extra lorries would have to either come through Fritton which has a sharp bend on a hill, go over the little single track bridge at St Olaves or go up Herringfleet Road and through Somerleyton which also has some very sharp bends; none of these roads are suitable for this extra traffic. I live in a cottage very close to the A143 and lorries driving through the village make our cottage shake so this extra volume of heavy vehicles could damage our cottages and who would be responsible if any damage were to occur?
The police regularly catch vehicles exceeding the speed limit through the village and we have been told that this can be about 40 vehicles per hour; we already get many lorries exceeding the speed limit early in the morning when they are confident that they are not going to get caught on a speed camera and it is this combination of speed and weight that make the vibration of the cottage worse. I have no confidence that these quarry lorries will not also ignore the speed limit.
The government has a new clean air strategy and this aims to reduce the amount of people living near sources of PM2.5 particulates because of the damage they do to the health of the population. It recognises WHO limits on PM2,5 and includes their production by industry, agriculture and other sources. Quarrying will produce PM2.5 particles only a few metres from residential properties and ionisation of these particles by high tension wires could increase their ability to damage the health of the community. How can an organisation that works closely with government Public Health departments from one side say it is alright to risk the health of a whole community by allowing production of PM2.5. Where will the responsibility lie when the health of the community deteriorates due to COPD or worse?
More trees would have to be chopped down, spoiling an area of natural beauty and having an adverse effect on plants and wildlife and the wellbeing of people who use the woods for recreational purposes.
We would also suffer with light and noise pollution. We chose to live here because of the lack of light and noise pollution- we like the peace and quiet.
Should anyone have the right to take this from us? We worry about human rights violations in many areas of life e.g. offenders, but will our human rights not be violated if you allow this quarry to go ahead?
There is a potential for increased risk of flooding to some properties and an increased risk of fires in the remaining wooded areas.
The next point is more emotive but relevant- would you want a quarry to start this close to your property. There must be other places to quarry which are further away from residential properties and that are not going to spoil such a beautiful area. Have you visited our woods and looked out across the broads or are we just a few lines on a map? It would be a tragedy to lose this beautiful view.
I hope we can rely on you to stop this happening.

I am objecting to the proposed quarrying in the Waveney Forest at Fritton. If you walk through our village, where there are pavements , they are very narrow and this makes the walker feel unsafe especially when larger vehicles go past. We have had an incident recently where an elderly villager was clipped by a passing vehicle and had to helped to his feet by another villager. A greater number of more regular lorries, estimated at up to 50 vehicles a day, would make walking through the village feel very hazardous. These extra lorries would have to either come through Fritton which has a sharp bend on a hill, go over the little single track bridge at St Olaves or go up Herringfleet Road and through Somerleyton which also has some very sharp bends; none of these roads are suitable for this extra traffic. I live in a cottage very close to the A143 and lorries driving through the village make our cottage shake so this extra volume of heavy vehicles could damage our cottages and who would be responsible if any damage were to occur?
The police regularly catch vehicles exceeding the speed limit through the village and we have been told that this can be about 40 vehicles per hour; we already get many lorries exceeding the speed limit early in the morning when they are confident that they are not going to get caught on a speed camera and it is this combination of speed and weight that make the vibration of the cottage worse. I have no confidence that these quarry lorries will not also ignore the speed limit.
The government has a new clean air strategy and this aims to reduce the amount of people living near sources of PM2.5 particulates because of the damage they do to the health of the population. It recognises WHO limits on PM2,5 and includes their production by industry, agriculture and other sources. Quarrying will produce PM2.5 particles only a few metres from residential properties and ionisation of these particles by high tension wires could increase their ability to damage the health of the community. How can an organisation that works closely with government Public Health departments from one side say it is alright to risk the health of a whole community by allowing production of PM2.5. Where will the responsibility lie when the health of the community deteriorates due to COPD or worse?
More trees would have to be chopped down, spoiling an area of natural beauty and having an adverse effect on plants and wildlife and the wellbeing of people who use the woods for recreational purposes.
We would also suffer with light and noise pollution. We chose to live here because of the lack of light and noise pollution- we like the peace and quiet.
Should anyone have the right to take this from us? We worry about human rights violations in many areas of life e.g. offenders, but will our human rights not be violated if you allow this quarry to go ahead?
There is a potential for increased risk of flooding to some properties and an increased risk of fires in the remaining wooded areas.
The next point is more emotive but relevant- would you want a quarry to start this close to your property. There must be other places to quarry which are further away from residential properties and that are not going to spoil such a beautiful area. Have you visited our woods and looked out across the broads or are we just a few lines on a map? It would be a tragedy to lose this beautiful view.
I hope we can rely on you to stop this happening.

Application for quarry in Waveney Forest Fritton Norfolk
I would like to point out the amount of traffic has increased dramatically
on the A143 through Fritton and St Olaves since the new road from Bradwell to Gorleston was opened. I live on the A143 at St Olaves, and on more than a number of occasions have seen , from my kitchen window, ambulances with flashing lights brought to a halt by the amount of traffic. This is surely putting people's lives at risk. The number of ambulances back and forth to James Paget Hospital use this road more than ever now, as it is quicker than the former route. Heavy lorries from a quarry would add to congestion, and would not be safe. Please consider people's lives and safety when dealing with this application.

I wish to make my feelings made clear with regards to the suggestion or proposal that Fritton forest could be destroyed in making way for aggregate extraction.

This location is a community asset from many aspects:

The River Waveney (Norfolk Broads) runs along side the proposed site, leading to potential water contamination and also an eyesore for the many Broads cruisers.

"Angles Way" using this riverbank, an historic long distance walk, voted the best riverside walk in Britain!

The local community use this fantastic facility in their thousands for leisurely pursuits.

Access to the site is awkward, a road dividing the village, with a junction onto the A143, full of hazard on an already overworked road.

Risk of air pollution to the local residents.

I could go on, I'm sure others will have shared their own concerns.

I am well aware that most community fears or worries can be overcome with planning conditions and Brett's aggregates complying with these, but when the damage has been done there is no way of "re-winding" the situation!

Fritton Woods should stay

I am appalled and sad that Fritton (waveney forest) is even being considered for a dirty gravel pit. Please don't allow this to happen. Think about the future, our health. Our beautiful forest. Clean air, open spaces... Is this all about money as usual? If this happens I guess its time to leave the country where I was born... People just don't care anymore. Turn down the proposals please.

Please protect our lovely forest. I am from Lowestoft and it is the only green space that brings me comfort.

Essex & Suffolk Water (southern operating area of Northumbrian Water Group) would like to make the following comments in relation to the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Initial Consultation document (May 2018) and the proposed sand and gravel extraction area at Waveney Forest, Fritton:

Fritton Lake is predominantly a groundwater fed lake from which Essex & Suffolk Water abstracts for public water supply to Belton, North Lowestoft and the surrounding villages.
The Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Initial Consultation document (May 2018) has stated that the proposed Fritton Waveney Forest sand and gravel extraction area is located within the catchment and 400 metres from Fritton Lake. If dewatering was required, this would lower local groundwater levels, could change the groundwater catchment boundary and therefore could affect groundwater flow into Fritton Lake, thus potentially compromising Essex & Suffolk Water's abstraction.

We trust that the hydrological and hydrogeological effects of operations associated with gravel extraction at all the proposed sites and particularly at Waveney Forest, Fritton will be considered as part of your detailed options appraisal.

We would object to any dewatering or activities that would reduce base flow to or affect the water quality of Fritton Lake.

The Woodland Trust is the largest woodland conservation charity in the UK and a leading voice in bringing to the attention of government, land owners and the general public the state of the UK's trees and woodland. We champion and deliver the most dynamic solutions to protect and revitalise our natural environment - the recreation of wooded landscapes on a national scale.
We campaign to ensure that laws governing environmental protection are enforced and that the government is held to account on environmental pledges. We also campaign vigorously with the support of local communities, to prevent any further destruction of ancient woods.
And, to further protect the UK's natural environment, we've built up an estate of our own managed woodland covering over 73 square miles across the UK, of which a third is irreplaceable ancient woodland. With a supporter base of half a million we were the first, and remain the most significant contributor to woodland protection, restoration and creation in the UK. We are experts in a natural resource that has the potential to transform the UK's natural environment and ensure its continued
survival.
Ancient woodland, veteran and ancient trees
Ancient woodland, veteran and ancient trees are irreplaceable natural resources. Ancient Woodland is land that has remained constantly wooded since AD1600. The length at which ancient woodland takes to develop and evolve (centuries, even millennia), coupled with the vital links it creates between plants, animals and soils accentuate its irreplaceable status. The varied and unique habitats ancient woodland sites provide for many of the UK's most important and threatened fauna and flora species cannot be re-created and cannot afford to be lost.
Ancient and veteran trees are especially important for wildlife. Along with their historical or cultural significance, our ancient trees are loved by communities because of their special appearance, the rare fungi, plants and animals they support and the stories associated with them. Ancient and veteran trees can be classified due to the presence of ancient and veteran features.
As such, the Woodland Trust aims to prevent the damage, fragmentation and loss of these finite irreplaceable habitats from any form of disruptive development. Approximately one quarter of priority UK BAP species are associated with woodland habitats. Forests, woods, and trees make a significant contribution to biodiversity, and ancient sites are recognised as being of particular value.
Due to their longevity, ancient woodlands are more species rich, and are often refuges for specialist woodland species that struggle to colonise new areas.

National Policy
The recently revised NPPF states:
175. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:
c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and

Footnote 58 elaborates: For example, infrastructure projects (including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport and Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat.

Policy Specific Comments
We welcome the recognition of the importance of ancient woodland, aged and veteran trees for both biodiversity and landscape as set out in pages 27 and 28. However we would like to flag the revised wording set out in the NPPF, the term 'aged' has been replaced with 'ancient as this is seen to better align with the practical interpretation of the NPPF.
The Woodland Trust warmly welcomes Norfolk's proposed approach (set out on page 67) to Areas of Search for silica sand extraction; the 250m exclusion zone for dust is a best practice approach. As such we strongly support Policy MP2: Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction.

Sites
The following sites have be found to affect ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees.

MIN 45 - land north of Coxford Abbey Quarry (south of Fakenham Road), East Rudham. Proposed for mineral extraction. Contains Coxford Wood which is a Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS). Size of affected woodland 23.73 ha. Grid reference TF82315566.

MIN 38 - land East of Fritton marshes. Proposed for mineral extraction. Contain veteran beech. Grid reference TG46390076.

MIN 202 - land south of Reepham Road, Attlebridge. Proposed for mineral extraction. Mileplain Plantation, which is a Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS) and is adjacent to the site boundary. Size of affected woodland 19.8 Ha. Grid reference TG14163195

AOS J - Land to the east of Tottenhill. Proposed for an area of search for mineral extraction. Two veteran oaks to the east of Craven Lane. Grid reference TF65105491


MIN 45
We strongly support the Council's initial conclusion that the site should not be taken forward due to the presence of ancient woodland.

MIN 38
Again the Trust supports the Council's position not to allocate the site but would like to add the presence of a veteran beech tree (as noted on the Ancient Tree Inventory) as a further reason not to take this site forward.

MIN 202
We welcome the recognition of Mileplain Plantation, which is a Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS) adjacent to the site boundary. Planning authorities and inspectors increasingly act to prevent the direct destruction of ancient woodland. However, the damage and impacts posed to ancient woods by nearby development are not so widely appreciated. The Trust opposes MIN 202 in its current form due to the potential impact on ancient woodland. Any future application should be subject to a substantial planted buffer of 50m to ensure the integrity of the ancient woodland.

AOS J
We would like to highlight the presence of two veteran oaks to the east of Craven Lane which are listed on the Ancient Tree Inventory but are not listed within the constraints for AOS J. These trees must be listed as a constraint. In the event of any application coming forward these veteran trees should be subject Policy MP2.

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: No way!

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: Been walking dogs and kids and riding for over 40 years there!!!

I object to Brett's application on MIN 38.
Comments: Why?!!!