MIN 38 - land at Waveney Forest, Fritton

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 45

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 93485

Received: 28/09/2019

Respondent: Miss J Harris

Representation:

As a small village the forest is part of the community as neighbour walk together and care for the woods. Concerns about the noise and dust created by the site is a major concern as farm vehicles and lorries are currently using new road causing disturbances. Currently a lot of sand and silt is washed on to the road during wet weather and I can only see this getting worse causing damage to the side of the road. Currently the traffic along the A143 at peak times can be blocked for miles as one of the main routes to Norwich and Beccles. As it is a crossing over the broads the traffic can be stuck causing concerns over pollution. I can only see this becoming worse with the addition of more lorries and traffic. This road is not suitable for the continued addition of more traffic. The forest itself is filled with wildlife which would be destroyed, I have witnessed adders, deer, weasels and slow worms in the forest. As well as it being part of the broadland area it does contain sites of historical importance. The areas itself is used often for walkers and brings people into the village.

Full text:

As a small village the forest is part of the community as neighbour walk together and care for the woods. Concerns about the noise and dust created by the site is a major concern as farm vehicles and lorries are currently using new road causing disturbances. Currently a lot of sand and silt is washed on to the road during wet weather and I can only see this getting worse causing damage to the side of the road. Currently the traffic along the A143 at peak times can be blocked for miles as one of the main routes to Norwich and Beccles. As it is a crossing over the broads the traffic can be stuck causing concerns over pollution. I can only see this becoming worse with the addition of more lorries and traffic. This road is not suitable for the continued addition of more traffic. The forest itself is filled with wildlife which would be destroyed, I have witnessed adders, deer, weasels and slow worms in the forest. As well as it being part of the broadland area it does contain sites of historical importance. The areas itself is used often for walkers and brings people into the village.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 93486

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Neil Doncaster

Representation:

I support the conclusion (at M38.25) that this site is "unsuitable for allocation".
Waveney Forest is a significant asset, including as an example of a World War 2 training area.
Were the site to be allocated, there would be considerable disruption to people living in the village of Fritton.
The proposed access route into the site would considerably increase traffic through the village, increasing pollution and disruption.

Full text:

I support the conclusion (at M38.25) that this site is "unsuitable for allocation".
Waveney Forest is a significant asset, including as an example of a World War 2 training area.
Were the site to be allocated, there would be considerable disruption to people living in the village of Fritton.
The proposed access route into the site would considerably increase traffic through the village, increasing pollution and disruption.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 93534

Received: 01/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Amanda Stacey

Representation:

I have to admit that I am a bit confused having read through the document on the website and the conclusion for proposed site MIN 38 appears to suggest that "the site is considered to be unsuitable for allocation". Seeing as the above was a fairly recent conclusion and nothing has changed is the site really being put forward again?
I have many objections to any such proposal, either now or in the future.
Twice this year (8th May and 14th May) police were called to Fritton Woods by members of the public, as explosive devices have been discovered (EDP newspaper articles dated 9th May and 14th May). No one know with any certainty what lies beneath the trees, seeing as the area was used during both world wars I think it would be foolhardy to go ripping the land apart.
Also, in the current "climate emergency" I believe it would be far better if the area were left as woodland, it is an exceptionally popular with all manner of folk walking the well trodden pathways.
Please register my objection to any proposed plan at turning Waveney Forest into a sand and gravel quarry.

Full text:

I am writing in regard to 'the Preferred Options document' Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
I have to admit that I am a bit confused having read through the document on the website and the conclusion for proposed site MIN 38 (Fritton) appears to suggest that 'the site is considered to be unsuitable for allocation' due to:
- the harm to the significance of Waveney Forest as an example of a WW2 training area could not be appropriately mitigated as the significance relates to the area as a whole.
- the site is located within the Broads, there are more acceptable alternative sites for sand and gravel extraction proposed in the plan in accordance with paragraph 205(a) of the NPPF and therefore the site was not being put forward.
Seeing as the above was a fairly recent conclusion and nothing has changed is the site really being put forward again?
I have many objections to any such proposal, either now or in the future.
Twice this year (8th May and 14th May) police were called to Fritton Woods by members of the public, as explosive devices have been discovered (EDP newspaper articles dated 9th May and 14th May). No one know with any certainty what lies beneath the trees, seeing as the area was used during both world wars I think it would be foolhardy to go ripping the land apart.
Also, in the current "climate emergency" I believe it would be far better if the area were left as woodland, it is an exceptionally popular with all manner of folk walking the well trodden pathways.
Please register my objection to any proposed plan at turning Waveney Forest into a sand and gravel quarry. Thank you

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 94539

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: Michelle Brooham

Representation:

In regards to suggesting Waveney Forest in Fritton could be a suitable mining location, there are many reasons why this should and must not happen,
There are many houses in the area, all of whom would be affected by the noise and dust( sound travels a long way here, traffic from the main road and also the trains can be heard and they are further off than the mining areas. It does get very windy here too, therefore follows that dust will travel)
The main road particularly the tight bend just after the decoy pub towards Gorleston does not seem a safe option, cars already cross to the other side let alone large lorries
The proposed new access is just off the brow of a hill so again, seems dangerous to suggest lorries should emerge from here safely, especially when we are dealing with 50 a day
Hundreds of people utilise the woods daily, whether its from dog walking , cycling, bird watching etc, to render this area unusable seems very destructive to the local community
Many animals class the woods as their home, deer, owls, squirrels, etc. With some of the woods having been already been destroyed and not replanted we would lose much more wildlife if a mine was allowed
There are areas of historical nature within the forest. It's also important to consider how many grenades/bombs have been discovered and exploded in the last few years. Mining could unearth more of these.
I object to this becoming a mine and agree with the councils opinion that this is not a suitable location.

Full text:

In regards to suggesting Waveney Forest in Fritton could be a suitable mining location, there are many reasons why this should and must not happen,
There are many houses in the area, all of whom would be affected by the noise and dust( sound travels a long way here, traffic from the main road and also the trains can be heard and they are further off than the mining areas. It does get very windy here too, therefore follows that dust will travel)
The main road particularly the tight bend just after the decoy pub towards Gorleston does not seem a safe option, cars already cross to the other side let alone large lorries
The proposed new access is just off the brow of a hill so again, seems dangerous to suggest lorries should emerge from here safely, especially when we are dealing with 50 a day
Hundreds of people utilise the woods daily, whether its from dog walking , cycling, bird watching etc, to render this area unusable seems very destructive to the local community
Many animals class the woods as their home, deer, owls, squirrels, etc. With some of the woods having been already been destroyed and not replanted we would lose much more wildlife if a mine was allowed
There are areas of historical nature within the forest. It's also important to consider how many grenades/bombs have been discovered and exploded in the last few years. Mining could unearth more of these.
I object to this becoming a mine and agree with the councils opinion that this is not a suitable location.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 95477

Received: 07/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs K Watts-Kent

Representation:

I am writing to lodge my objection to the felling of trees in Fritton Woods for the purposes of creating a gravel pit

There are few green spaces where people can walk and Fritton Woods is an important area for the physical and mental wellbeing of local residents. I and my family all walk there.

Felling numerous trees when global warming is such an issue is totally irresponsible. We need trees , and we are being told that trees need to be planted to offset the carbon omissions that we create.

Please do not allow this destruction to happen

Full text:

I am writing to lodge my objection to the felling of trees in Fritton Woods for the purposes of creating a gravel pit

There are few green spaces where people can walk and Fritton Woods is an important area for the physical and mental wellbeing of local residents. I and my family all walk there.

Felling numerous trees when global warming is such an issue is totally irresponsible. We need trees , and we are being told that trees need to be planted to offset the carbon omissions that we create.

Please do not allow this destruction to happen

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 95478

Received: 07/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Donna Battle

Representation:

I am emailing in regards to the destruction of fritton woods and to vote no!

I walk my dogs there and have done for a long time , it's a lovely woods , great location and always meet friendly dog walkers and visitors Lovely scenery and place to walk

Full text:

I am emailing in regards to the destruction of fritton woods and to vote no!

I walk my dogs there and have done for a long time , it's a lovely woods , great location and always meet friendly dog walkers and visitors Lovely scenery and place to walk

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 95479

Received: 07/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Mary Kent

Representation:

I am writing to lodge my objection to the felling of trees in Fritton Woods for the purposes of creating a gravel pit
There are few green spaces where people can walk and Fritton Woods is an important area for the physical and mental wellbeing of local residents
Felling numerous trees when global warming is such an issue is totally irresponsible. We need trees , and we are being told that trees need to be planted to offset the carbon omissions that we create.
Please do not allow this destruction to happen

Full text:

I am writing to lodge my objection to the felling of trees in Fritton Woods for the purposes of creating a gravel pit
There are few green spaces where people can walk and Fritton Woods is an important area for the physical and mental wellbeing of local residents
Felling numerous trees when global warming is such an issue is totally irresponsible. We need trees , and we are being told that trees need to be planted to offset the carbon omissions that we create.
Please do not allow this destruction to happen

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 95480

Received: 07/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Robert Oldman

Representation:

Please stop the destruction of Fritton Woods......thought we needed MORE trees to help the environment not less....

Full text:

Please stop the destruction of Fritton Woods......thought we needed MORE trees to help the environment not less....

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 95621

Received: 15/10/2019

Respondent: Mr P Bosworth

Representation:

Thank you for the invitation to comment. I trust you will accept that all my previous objections still stand.

I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Full text:

MIN38

Thank you for the invitation to comment. I trust you will accept that all my previous objections still stand.

I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 95625

Received: 15/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs J Bosworth

Representation:

Thank you for the invitation to comment. I trust you will accept that all my previous objections still stand.

I fully support the conclusions listed and the permanent omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Full text:

Thank you for the invitation to comment. I trust you will accept that all my previous objections still stand.

I fully support the conclusions listed and the permanent omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98128

Received: 24/10/2019

Respondent: Mr I McIntyre

Representation:

MIN38 *MITIGATION PROSPECTS REVIEWED
AIRBORNE QUARRY DUST
Despite The use of best practice, it may prove difficult to prevent the release of a few hand fulls of airborne quarry dust.
Air quality standards are now so stringent, that a few hand fulls of airborne dust is enough to make illegal all the air in Waveney Forest, from ground to tree top height.
SHELTER BELTS
It was observed that where forest was clear felled, transmission of sound was DECREASED. This is to be expected as mature forest, and shelter belt surviving wind erosion, will act as a centimetric waveguide, increasing rather than reducing, audible noise transmission.
QUANTIFYING MITIGATION
Concerning Aggregates Companies claimed levels of mitigation are apt to stem from Q.U.A.N.G.O.S., trade associations or other interested parties, rather than bone fide INDEPENDENT scientific institutions, subject to peer review. They must therefore be treated with caution.

Full text:

MIN38 *MITIGATION PROSPECTS REVIEWED
AIRBORNE QUARRY DUST
Despite The use of best practice, it may prove difficult to prevent the release of a few hand fulls of airborne quarry dust.
Air quality standards are now so stringent, that a few hand fulls of airborne dust is enough to make illegal all the air in Waveney Forest, from ground to tree top height.
SHELTER BELTS
It was observed that where forest was clear felled, transmission of sound was DECREASED. This is to be expected as mature forest, and shelter belt surviving wind erosion, will act as a centimetric waveguide, increasing rather than reducing, audible noise transmission.
QUANTIFYING MITIGATION
Concerning Aggregates Companies claimed levels of mitigation are apt to stem from Q.U.A.N.G.O.S., trade associations or other interested parties, rather than bone fide INDEPENDENT scientific institutions, subject to peer review. They must therefore be treated with caution.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98152

Received: 10/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Ann Hutchinson

Representation:

Thank you for your email re. Fritton Woods.
All my previous objections stand. I also support the council's omissions (MIN38) from the list of preferred options we need far more trees - not less!

Full text:

Thank you for your email re. Fritton Woods.
All my previous objections stand. I also support the council's omissions (MIN38) from the list of preferred options we need far more trees - not less!

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98166

Received: 04/10/2019

Respondent: Mr I McIntyre

Representation:

PROPOSED QUARRY AT WAVENEY FOREST FRITTON. 2019/20 Consultation!
What I find particularly irksome about this application is that in making it at all the applicants are seemingly prepared, with the owners, to discount previous arrangements made under Crown aegis, for continuance of the forest as a public amenity.
For some forty years the forest was maintained as a working and amenity forest by central government funding via the Forestry Commission before being (mistakenly?) sold into private hands. Subsequently the current custodians 'took the queen's shilling' in the form of Forestry Commission help to enhance the future amenity value of the forest. See FIGURE 1 below for exact text
Some time after mooting plans for a quarry the owners confined forest access to the pre-existing rights of way and later both the 'walkers welcome' notices bearing FIGURE l text were removed from the forest entry points complete with the Crown emblems.
To discount the continuance of this amenity forest in this manner must surely be wrong? - What would Her Majesty say? Some insight may be gained from Her Majesty's words to Commonwealth Heads of Government.
"I have been especially touched by one such project, The Queen's Commonwealth Canopy, which has been proposed by Commonwealth countries wanting to harness their collective expertise and resources to protect the world's forests"
I trust that you will allow the Waveney Forest to continue in being ~

Full text:

PROPOSED QUARRY AT WAVENEY FOREST FRITTON. 2019/20 Consultation!
What I find particularly irksome about this application is that in making it at all the applicants are seemingly prepared, with the owners, to discount previous arrangements made under Crown aegis, for continuance of the forest as a public amenity.
For some forty years the forest was maintained as a working and amenity forest by central government funding via the Forestry Commission before being (mistakenly?) sold into private hands. Subsequently the current custodians 'took the queen's shilling' in the form of Forestry Commission help to enhance the future amenity value of the forest. See FIGURE 1 below for exact text
Some time after mooting plans for a quarry the owners confined forest access to the pre-existing rights of way and later both the 'walkers welcome' notices bearing FIGURE l text were removed from the forest entry points complete with the Crown emblems.
To discount the continuance of this amenity forest in this manner must surely be wrong? - What would Her Majesty say? Some insight may be gained from Her Majesty's words to Commonwealth Heads of Government.
I have been especially touched by one such project, The Queen's Commonwealth Canopy, which has been proposed by Commonwealth countries wanting to harness their collective expertise and resources to protect the world's forests"
I trust that you will allow the Waveney Forest to continue in being ~

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98173

Received: 03/10/2019

Respondent: Mr I McIntyre

Representation:

PROPOSED SAND & GRAVEL EXTRACTION AT WAVENEY FOREST - 2019 PROPOSAL.
I understand that application has been made to have the Waveney Forest designated by the County Council as a site for sand and gravel extraction and that the proposed extraction zones and associated works are virtually identical to the previous unsuccessful application (MIN 38) - See map P3.
You will see from the map that my house Forest Lodge is sited close to and dominantly down-wind of the extraction pit and likely to receive a lions share of airborne quarry dust.
Concerning health it is to be noted that [redacted text - personal data] These breathing problems could well be, exacerbated by airborne quarry dust. Also there have been many articles in medical journals like Lancet, too numerous to cite here, that highlight the risks of exposure to even low levels of airborne particulates.
I find this all quite worrying as the proposed quarry extends to within 120 metres of this house - only some 100 metres from our boundary. Even less reassuring are the robust downwind measurements of harmful quarry dust summarised in the Appendix 1 (P5) attached. When these are adjusted for the different site background dust levels and plotted against distance downwind from source we get the classical 'fall-out' curve akin to that for airborne post nuclear detonation or volcanic particles (albeit on a much smaller scale) which is just as one might expect, see Figure 1 below.

Shown along the lower margin of figure 1 on the same scale is the distance of both the house and our boundary fence from the quarry pit on a N.E. bearing. I have also drawn a horizontal line to show the U.K. National Air Quality Objective and European Directive limit of 40 µg/m3 annual mean, see Appendix 2 (P6). The plot shows the maximum allowable limit is exceeded for some 300 metres downwind of the pit. Furthermore at the distance of our house this limit is exceeded by some 55%, still more for part of the garden.
There is another matter of concern- Figure 2 below shows the windrose deemed appropriate by the would-be pit developers. For insight I have hand written round the edge the number of days per annum (totalling 365) when the wind blows from the direction of concern (proportional to the length of the rose 'petal'). It is apparent that on average, the wind blows towards the N.E. i.e. from the S.W. directly from the pit to my property. It is clear that our location could not be worse from the wind point of view.
As well as the environmental impact of dust cited above the quarry will have a massive noise impact, Despite the huge resources of the aggregates industry the applicants have seemingly failed to provide the required estimate of the expected sound generation of their activities, a conservative estimate would be some 84 dB at a range of 15metres. The basic premise of noise impact assessment is that the quieter the location the less acceptable is any sound addition (Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment 2002) .
Taking account of the proximity of the pit and the extremely low background sound level The perceived sound level at Forest Lodge will be several times that equating with the threshold of the highest (of five) noise impact categories (10 dB above background- termed Major noise impact).
Applicants have in the past made reference to 'mitigation measures' claimed to reduce the impact of their activities. There is a seeming lack however of independent quantitative scientific evidence of their level of effectiveness. The aggregates industry, however, have the resources to procure such evidence if the outcome were likely to be to their advantage, yet they have not.
The Planning Environment 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, taking account of the views of local residents. Also I understand that Local Authorities are now responsible for both the health and wellbeing of their residents.
Accordingly at this time I, together with other Fritton residents, are placing our trust in you as our first line of defence against the environmental impact of his proposed quarry so close to and upwind of us.
It is to be noted that if the Waveney Forest remains well managed and intact the carbon sequestered by the trees will enable the planned aggregate yield to be fetched many, many, miles by road from a more suitable site (non-forested, not near habitation, safe road access) on a lower carbon budget. This will accord with national policy of maintaining and increasing tree cover to limit climate change.

Full text:

PROPOSED SAND & GRAVEL EXTRACTION AT WAVENEY FOREST - 2019 PROPOSAL.
I understand that application has been made to have the Waveney Forest designated by the County Council as a site for sand and gravel extraction and that the proposed extraction zones and associated works are virtually identical to the previous unsuccessful application (MIN 38) - See map P3.
You will see from the map that my house Forest Lodge is sited close to and dominantly down-wind of the extraction pit and likely to receive a lions share of airborne quarry dust.
Concerning health it is to be noted that [redacted text - personal data] These breathing problems could well be, exacerbated by airborne quarry dust. Also there have been many articles in medical journals like Lancet, too numerous to cite here, that highlight the risks of exposure to even low levels of airborne particulates.
I find this all quite worrying as the proposed quarry extends to within 120 metres of this house - only some 100 metres from our boundary. Even less reassuring are the robust downwind measurements of harmful quarry dust summarised in the Appendix 1 (P5) attached. When these are adjusted for the different site background dust levels and plotted against distance downwind from source we get the classical 'fall-out' curve akin to that for airborne post nuclear detonation or volcanic particles (albeit on a much smaller scale) which is just as one might expect, see Figure 1 below.

Shown along the lower margin of figure 1 on the same scale is the distance of both the house and our boundary fence from the quarry pit on a N.E. bearing. I have also drawn a horizontal line to show the U.K. National Air Quality Objective and European Directive limit of 40 µg/m3 annual mean, see Appendix 2 (P6). The plot shows the maximum allowable limit is exceeded for some 300 metres downwind of the pit. Furthermore at the distance of our house this limit is exceeded by some 55%, still more for part of the garden.
There is another matter of concern- Figure 2 below shows the windrose deemed appropriate by the would-be pit developers. For insight I have hand written round the edge the number of days per annum (totalling 365) when the wind blows from the direction of concern (proportional to the length of the rose 'petal'). It is apparent that on average, the wind blows towards the N.E. i.e. from the S.W. directly from the pit to my property. It is clear that our location could not be worse from the wind point of view.
As well as the environmental impact of dust cited above the quarry will have a massive noise impact, Despite the huge resources of the aggregates industry the applicants have seemingly failed to provide the required estimate of the expected sound generation of their activities, a conservative estimate would be some 84 dB at a range of 15metres. The basic premise of noise impact assessment is that the quieter the location the less acceptable is any sound addition (Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment 2002) .
Taking account of the proximity of the pit and the extremely low background sound level The perceived sound level at Forest Lodge will be several times that equating with the threshold of the highest (of five) noise impact categories (10 dB above background- termed Major noise impact).
Applicants have in the past made reference to 'mitigation measures' claimed to reduce the impact of their activities. There is a seeming lack however of independent quantitative scientific evidence of their level of effectiveness. The aggregates industry, however, have the resources to procure such evidence if the outcome were likely to be to their advantage, yet they have not.
The Planning Environment 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, taking account of the views of local residents. Also I understand that Local Authorities are now responsible for both the health and wellbeing of their residents.
Accordingly at this time I, together with other Fritton residents, are placing our trust in you as our first line of defence against the environmental impact of his proposed quarry so close to and upwind of us.
It is to be noted that if the Waveney Forest remains well managed and intact the carbon sequestered by the trees will enable the planned aggregate yield to be fetched many, many, miles by road from a more suitable site (non-forested, not near habitation, safe road access) on a lower carbon budget. This will accord with national policy of maintaining and increasing tree cover to limit climate change.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98182

Received: 03/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Keith Nunn

Representation:

Thank you for the invitation to comment.
I trust you will accept that all my previous objections which were many and varied, still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.
I would also draw your attention to the Minister for the Environments comments this year drawing attention to the importance of protecting every acre of woodland to offset the effects of global warming.
A further environmental report ,the Glover Report, stressed the importance of our National parks, and recommended new protection which would not countenance reduction in size of the woodland in favour of a Quarry.
The national and international destruction of forestry viz Brazil rain forest fires have united public opinion against this terrible loss.
Particulates have come more to the fore than previously envisaged .The authorities have at last recognised this and the UK is in the process of clearing up the atmosphere everywhere .A great effort to conform to European norms is under way. Our site is now surrounded by literally thousands of horses in sanctuaries that were not there previously. Our top particulate expert asserts that the respiratory canals of horses are long and very susceptible to the type of particulates that would come from a quarry. I have already commented upon the effects on the villages in close proximity

Full text:

Thank you for the invitation to comment.
I trust you will accept that all my previous objections which were many and varied, still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.
I would also draw your attention to the Minister for the Environments comments this year drawing attention to the importance of protecting every acre of woodland to offset the effects of global warming.
A further environmental report ,the Glover Report, stressed the importance of our National parks, and recommended new protection which would not countenance reduction in size of the woodland in favour of a Quarry.
The national and international destruction of forestry viz Brazil rain forest fires have united public opinion against this terrible loss.
Particulates have come more to the fore than previously envisaged .The authorities have at last recognised this and the UK is in the process of clearing up the atmosphere everywhere .A great effort to conform to European norms is under way. Our site is now surrounded by literally thousands of horses in sanctuaries that were not there previously. Our top particulate expert asserts that the respiratory canals of horses are long and very susceptible to the type of particulates that would come from a quarry. I have already commented upon the effects on the villages in close proximity

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98183

Received: 06/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Ann Wilby

Representation:

Local residents and those from surrounding areas use the forest as an amenity for exercise and dog walking. We are encouraged to get out and exercise more, and Waveney forest is an ideal location. The bridleway is frequented by horse riders.
* The very act of clearing large areas of trees is not environmentally friendly, we need more trees, not less.
* Large areas of young trees have been planted (I think they are douglas firs) to provide the next generation of wood for building. How can you justify pulling these young trees up?
* The added traffic going onto the A143, which would take the sand and gravel away, would be a horrendous problem, as the road through Fritton heading north is narrow, and not suitable for heavy traffic, especially on the Beccles road bends next to 'The Jolly Anglers'
* The dust and noise pollution from heavy plant machinery working all hours will be disruptive to residents of Fritton who have chosen to live in the country, aspiring to a quieter, tranquil, and healthier life. I have worked hard to purchase my own house in New Road, I would like the village and Waveney forest to remain free from the threat of heavy plant tearing up the unique and very special environment that exists here.
* There are many military sites scattered throughout the whole of the forest, that were WW2 (and some WW1) training ground sites. Most are listed and descriptions given on Norfolk Heritage Explorer sites, the main reference is NHER 43361. These include concrete hut bases, weapons pits, underground hides, trenches, a rifle range, old sewerage systems, to name but a few, that would be destroyed and lost forever.There is a good chance there are caches of hidden or buried unexploded ammunition.
* There will be a loss of biodiversity, wild flowers, animals, reptiles, insects, moths and butterflies, to name but a few, that exist within the forest habitat.
* To loose Waveney Forest as we know it today, would be a crass and criminal act. I cannot see what sense there is in tearing it apart. Leave it alone for residents, and visitors to enjoy.
* I repeat my earlier statement, that I object most strongly to Waveney forest becoming a site for sand and gravel extraction.

Full text:

Local residents and those from surrounding areas use the forest as an amenity for exercise and dog walking. We are encouraged to get out and exercise more, and Waveney forest is an ideal location. The bridleway is frequented by horse riders.
* The very act of clearing large areas of trees is not environmentally friendly, we need more trees, not less.
* Large areas of young trees have been planted (I think they are douglas firs) to provide the next generation of wood for building. How can you justify pulling these young trees up?
* The added traffic going onto the A143, which would take the sand and gravel away, would be a horrendous problem, as the road through Fritton heading north is narrow, and not suitable for heavy traffic, especially on the Beccles road bends next to 'The Jolly Anglers'
* The dust and noise pollution from heavy plant machinery working all hours will be disruptive to residents of Fritton who have chosen to live in the country, aspiring to a quieter, tranquil, and healthier life. I have worked hard to purchase my own house in New Road, I would like the village and Waveney forest to remain free from the threat of heavy plant tearing up the unique and very special environment that exists here.
* There are many military sites scattered throughout the whole of the forest, that were WW2 (and some WW1) training ground sites. Most are listed and descriptions given on Norfolk Heritage Explorer sites, the main reference is NHER 43361. These include concrete hut bases, weapons pits, underground hides, trenches, a rifle range, old sewerage systems, to name but a few, that would be destroyed and lost forever.There is a good chance there are caches of hidden or buried unexploded ammunition.
* There will be a loss of biodiversity, wild flowers, animals, reptiles, insects, moths and butterflies, to name but a few, that exist within the forest habitat.
* To loose Waveney Forest as we know it today, would be a crass and criminal act. I cannot see what sense there is in tearing it apart. Leave it alone for residents, and visitors to enjoy.
* I repeat my earlier statement, that I object most strongly to Waveney forest becoming a site for sand and gravel extraction.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98184

Received: 07/10/2019

Respondent: Hayley Carruthers

Representation:

Re: Fritton Woods

I am again writing to you to strongly object to Fritton Woods being turned into a mineral extraction site.

The main objection points I have are:

1. The loss of the natural beauty site used by many people
2. The historical aspect that needs to be remembered
3. The health conditions of people and animals due to the dust particles
4. The roads and bridges not being substantial enough for more heavy traffic
5. Build up of traffic

I have lived in the village for over 50 years and have always thought myself lucky to live in such a beautiful place with all the natural beauty and historical elements. It would be awful for the public to be deprived of this.

I [redacted text - personal data] am worried as to what the effect will be on my breathing due to the dust from any extraction work if the quarry goes ahead.

Please accept my objections to the application to turn Fritton woods into a sand and gravel quarry.

Full text:

Re: Fritton Woods

I am again writing to you to strongly object to Fritton Woods being turned into a mineral extraction site.

The main objection points I have are:

1. The loss of the natural beauty site used by many people
2. The historical aspect that needs to be remembered
3. The health conditions of people and animals due to the dust particles
4. The roads and bridges not being substantial enough for more heavy traffic
5. Build up of traffic

I have lived in the village for over 50 years and have always thought myself lucky to live in such a beautiful place with all the natural beauty and historical elements. It would be awful for the public to be deprived of this.

[Redacted text - personal data] I am worried as to what the effect will be on my breathing due to the dust from any extraction work if the quarry goes ahead.

Please accept my objections to the application to turn Fritton woods into a sand and gravel quarry.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98185

Received: 09/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Stewart Wragg

Number of people: 3

Representation:

I am writing on behalf of myself, Mr Stewart Wragg, Mr Maurice Burrage and Mr Michael Burrage.

As regular users of the area proposed in MIN38 we are horrified at the idea of further destruction of a valuable local beauty spot that is extensively used by many people, for dog walking, horse riding, ramblers, nature and bird watchers as well as schools for presumably nature studies, the destruction of this area would have a devastating effect on a diverse local wildlife population, as well as taking away a valuable local recreation area of wonderful natural beauty, to which the company have already caused extensive and unnecessary damage that will take decades to recover.

There is also the factor as stated in your own report of the historical value of the site and although it is claimed that the excavations will avoid the WW2 site and the old railway bridge, I believe this to be untrue based on the plan shown in your report the southern area proposed is right on top of a network of WW2 tunnels and bunkers which would be destroyed and lost forever should this be allowed to continue. Unfortunately many people believe that being a relatively modern site as WW2 is still in living memory, that it is not important enough to warrant protection, and it is this very fact that is causing the destruction of many important historical sites, which we should really be preserving, or this more recent history will become much like the dark ages with almost nothing left in our country of this very important period.

Next the increase in heavy traffic proposed will also have an adverse effect on the area, again for the local wildlife, as well as the human population in the area, and the local animal sanctuaries in the area with increased noise, and traffic. As well as the proposed right turn lane to be put on Beccles causing major disruption to area.

Finally your own report conclusions state that the site is not suitable for such a proposal and We therefore urge you to refuse this proposal and maintain at least this portion of our rapidly diminishing countryside and local beauty spots.

Full text:

I am writing on behalf of myself, Mr Stewart Wragg, Mr Maurice Burrage and Mr Michael Burrage

As regular users of the area proposed in MIN38 we are horrified at the idea of further destruction of a valuable local beauty spot that is extensively used by many people, for dog walking, horse riding, ramblers, nature and bird watchers as well as schools for presumably nature studies, the destruction of this area would have a devastating effect on a diverse local wildlife population, as well as taking away a valuable local recreation area of wonderful natural beauty, to which the company have already caused extensive and unnecessary damage that will take decades to recover.

There is also the factor as stated in your own report of the historical value of the site and although it is claimed that the excavations will avoid the WW2 site and the old railway bridge, I believe this to be untrue based on the plan shown in your report the southern area proposed is right on top of a network of WW2 tunnels and bunkers which would be destroyed and lost forever should this be allowed to continue. Unfortunately many people believe that being a relatively modern site as WW2 is still in living memory, that it is not important enough to warrant protection, and it is this very fact that is causing the destruction of many important historical sites, which we should really be preserving, or this more recent history will become much like the dark ages with almost nothing left in our country of this very important period.

Next the increase in heavy traffic proposed will also have an adverse effect on the area, again for the local wildlife, as well as the human population in the area, and the local animal sanctuaries in the area with increased noise, and traffic. As well as the proposed right turn lane to be put on Beccles causing major disruption to area.

Finally your own report conclusions state that the site is not suitable for such a proposal and We therefore urge you to refuse this proposal and maintain at least this portion of our rapidly diminishing countryside and local beauty spots.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98186

Received: 29/10/2019

Respondent: Mr R Steels

Representation:

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.

Over the summer my wife has helped with the speedwatch in Fritton and in each one hour slot more than 50 vehicles have been travelling in excess of 37mph, some in excess of 50mph, including lorries and buses and on each occassion we have witessed faster vehicles overtaking other vehicles in the middle of the village. Bringing more heavy lorries through the village can only make this worse and do not imagine that they will pay any attention to a speed limit that so many others ignore.
Subsequent to my original letter, there are now a lot of horses and other farm animals in the surrounding fields, many of which are rescue animals on land owned by animal charities. Particulate matter mentioned in my original letter would make this area uninhabitable by these animals. You would be displacing a lot of wild animals such as deer and numerous species of birds Also, can we afford to lose more trees in this time of climate awareness; we should be protecting our environment, climate and planet not adding to its problems. Can Norfolk County Council be seen to be displacing animals aleady in the care of rescue charities, to be paying no heed to the health of the residents of this and nearby villages and to be adding to the envirnmental problems of our island and planet.

Full text:

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.

Over the summer my wife has helped with the speedwatch in Fritton and in each one hour slot more than 50 vehicles have been travelling in excess of 37mph, some in excess of 50mph, including lorries and buses and on each occassion we have witessed faster vehicles overtaking other vehicles in the middle of the village. Bringing more heavy lorries through the village can only make this worse and do not imagine that they will pay any attention to a speed limit that so many others ignore.
Subsequent to my original letter, there are now a lot of horses and other farm animals in the surrounding fields, many of which are rescue animals on land owned by animal charities. Particulate matter mentioned in my original letter would make this area uninhabitable by these animals. You would be displacing a lot of wild animals such as deer and numerous species of birds Also, can we afford to lose more trees in this time of climate awareness; we should be protecting our environment, climate and planet not adding to its problems. Can Norfolk County Council be seen to be displacing animals aleady in the care of rescue charities, to be paying no heed to the health of the residents of this and nearby villages and to be adding to the envirnmental problems of our island and planet.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98200

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Fritton and St Olaves Parish Council

Representation:

Fritton with St Olaves Parish Council would like to submit the following comment in relation to Waveney Forest MIN38.

The Parish Council would like all previous objections to be included.
The Parish Council fully supports the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Full text:

Fritton with St Olaves Parish Council would like to submit the following comment in relation to Waveney Forest MIN38.

The Parish Council would like all previous objections to be included.
The Parish Council fully supports the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98201

Received: 23/09/2019

Respondent: Miss Ros M Green

Representation:

Regarding the MIN 38 CONSULTATION.
Thank you for the invitation to comment.
An extended mineral, etc, extraction license was granted to Folkes Plant and Aggregates of Burgh Castle, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk. The main purpose of this was to save Fritton Woods from any destruction.
Furthermore, I want all my previous objections to still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN 38 from the list of preferred options

Full text:

Regarding the MIN 38 CONSULTATION.
Thank you for the invitation to comment.
An extended mineral, etc, extraction license was granted to Folkes Plant and Aggregates of Burgh Castle, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk. The main purpose of this was to save Fritton Woods from any destruction.
Furthermore, I want all my previous objections to still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN 38 from the list of preferred options

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98204

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Margaret Johnson

Representation:

Thank you for the invitation to comment.
I trust that you will accept that all my previous objections still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN 38 from the list of preferred options.

I would also like to add that since the initial consultation the Glover Report on National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty has been published. This stresses the importance of being able to get out into these areas on the general health and well being of people who live in built up areas, and also the positive impact supplied by the trees in them.

Fritton Woods is a tremendous asset to the nearby ever expanding conurbations of Gt. Yarmouth and Lowestoft for both of these reasons.

I ask that you give these extra points some consideration

Full text:

Thank you for the invitation to comment.
I trust that you will accept that all my previous objections still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN 38 from the list of preferred options.

I would also like to add that since the initial consultation the Glover Report on National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty has been published. This stresses the importance of being able to get out into these areas on the general health and well being of people who live in built up areas, and also the positive impact supplied by the trees in them.

Fritton Woods is a tremendous asset to the nearby ever expanding conurbations of Gt. Yarmouth and Lowestoft for both of these reasons.

I ask that you give these extra points some consideration

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98205

Received: 29/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs C Steels

Representation:

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.
Over the summer I have helped with the speedwatch in Fritton and in each one hour slot more than 50 vehicles have been travelling in excess of 37mph, some in excess of 50mph, including lorries and buses and on each occassion we have witessed faster vehicles overtaking other vehicles in the middle of the village. Bringing more heavy lorries through the village can only make this worse and do not imagine that they will pay any attention to a speed limit that so many others ignore.
Subsequent to my original letter, there are now a lot of horses and other farm animals in the surrounding fields, many of which are rescue animals on land owned by animal charities. Particulate matter mentioned in my original letter would make this area uninhabitable by these animals.
Also, can we afford to lose more trees in this time of climate awareness; we should be protecting our environment, climate and planet not adding to its problems. Can Norfolk County Council be seen to be displacing animals aleady in the care of rescue charities, to be paying no heed to the health of the residents of this and nearby villages and to be adding to the envirnmental problems of our island and planet.

Full text:

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.


Over the summer I have helped with the speedwatch in Fritton and in each one hour slot more than 50 vehicles have been travelling in excess of 37mph, some in excess of 50mph, including lorries and buses and on each occassion we have witessed faster vehicles overtaking other vehicles in the middle of the village. Bringing more heavy lorries through the village can only make this worse and do not imagine that they will pay any attention to a speed limit that so many others ignore.
Subsequent to my original letter, there are now a lot of horses and other farm animals in the surrounding fields, many of which are rescue animals on land owned by animal charities. Particulate matter mentioned in my original letter would make this area uninhabitable by these animals.
Also, can we afford to lose more trees in this time of climate awareness; we should be protecting our environment, climate and planet not adding to its problems. Can Norfolk County Council be seen to be displacing animals aleady in the care of rescue charities, to be paying no heed to the health of the residents of this and nearby villages and to be adding to the envirnmental problems of our island and planet.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98208

Received: 18/09/2019

Respondent: Ms Sarah Sayers

Representation:

I am writing to express my concern and objection to Waveney Forest (also know locally as Fritton Woods) being considered for development as an aggregate pit.

I am lucky enough to live very close to this wonderful wildlife habitat and visit the site regularly. I see just how many people use and enjoy this precious space. The area also has great value as a heritage site, with the old train line and platform still visible, and also has evidence of the army camp. I also have concerns that the A143 would not accommodate the increase in traffic.

I would like to ask that you consider these point when making your decision for a site. Thank you for your time,

Full text:

I am writing to express my concern and objection to Waveney Forest (also know locally as Fritton Woods) being considered for development as an aggregate pit.

I am lucky enough to live very close to this wonderful wildlife habitat and visit the site regularly. I see just how many people use and enjoy this precious space. The area also has great value as a heritage site, with the old train line and platform still visible, and also has evidence of the army camp. I also have concerns that the A143 would not accommodate the increase in traffic.

I would like to ask that you consider these point when making your decision for a site. Thank you for your time,

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98211

Received: 18/09/2019

Respondent: Ms Sophie Kitchen

Representation:

Re: CONSULTATION Min. 38, Fritton

Thank you for your invitation to comment on the above.
I trust that you will accept all my previous objections and I categorically state that they all still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Full text:

Re: CONSULTATION Min. 38, Fritton

Thank you for your invitation to comment on the above.
I trust that you will accept all my previous objections and I categorically state that they all still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98214

Received: 19/09/2019

Respondent: Catherine Short

Representation:

My name is catherine short , I have lived on new road gritting and now live lower cliff rd gorleston. I've spent a lot of time with grandchildren and walking my dogs in Waveney forest ( fritton woods) I would hate to lose any part of it . Please don't ruin our green space , trees are essential to our living please think what you are going to do .
I now live near gorleston beach which seems to have so much stone on it now can't this be aggregated? , maybe in the winter time . I've seen council diggers down there trying to level the sand , surely taking some of this stone would benefit you & beach uses . Doing this at convenient times would benefit everyone

Full text:

My name is catherine short , I have lived on new road gritting and now live lower cliff rd gorleston. I've spent a lot of time with grandchildren and walking my dogs in Waveney forest ( fritton woods) I would hate to lose any part of it . Please don't ruin our green space , trees are essential to our living please think what you are going to do .
I now live near gorleston beach which seems to have so much stone on it now can't this be aggregated? , maybe in the winter time . I've seen council diggers down there trying to level the sand , surely taking some of this stone would benefit you & beach uses . Doing this at convenient times would benefit everyone

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98217

Received: 19/09/2019

Respondent: Mr R Carruthers

Representation:

Re: CONSULTATION Min. 38, Fritton
Thank you for your invitation to comment on the above.
I trust that you will accept all my previous objections and I categorically state that they all still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.
The site is not only not suitable but would be immensely catastrophic if it were to go ahead.
1) What makes interesting reading is the Governments '' Strategy for England's Trees, Woods and Forests''
http://www.defra.gov.uk/.../rdd.../pdf/0706forestry-strategy.pdf
To quote the foreword of Barry Gardiner Parliamentary Under-secretary, D.E.F.R.A., 'Trees and Woodland make a big difference to the quality of people's lives, improving the places in which they live and work' he goes on to say that 'Climate change is the biggest of those challenges. Our trees and their associated soils make a valuable contribution to reducing Carbon Emissions'. In addition he says that 'Native woodland plants and animals need a network of wooded habitats along which they can move as the climate of their present habitats change'.
2) [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 vulnerable
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.

Full text:

Re: CONSULTATION Min. 38, Fritton
Thank you for your invitation to comment on the above.
I trust that you will accept all my previous objections and I categorically state that they all still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.
The site is not only not suitable but would be immensely catastrophic if it were to go ahead.
1) What makes interesting reading is the Governments '' Strategy for England's Trees, Woods and Forests''
http://www.defra.gov.uk/.../rdd.../pdf/0706forestry-strategy.pdf
To quote the foreword of Barry Gardiner Parliamentary Under-secretary, D.E.F.R.A., 'Trees and Woodland make a big difference to the quality of people's lives, improving the places in which they live and work' he goes on to say that 'Climate change is the biggest of those challenges. Our trees and their associated soils make a valuable contribution to reducing Carbon Emissions'. In addition he says that 'Native woodland plants and animals need a network of wooded habitats along which they can move as the climate of their present habitats change'.
2) [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 vulnerable
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.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98218

Received: 19/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Rowland Dunn

Representation:

MIN 38 CONSULTATION

Thank you for the invitation to comment.


I understand that there is dormant capacity at both Haddiscoe and Ditchingham Gravel pits that is not being utilised together with the extended capacity at the Folkes site.

Furthermore,I trust you will accept that all my previous objections still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Full text:

MIN 38 CONSULTATION

Thank you for the invitation to comment.


I understand that there is dormant capacity at both Haddiscoe and Ditchingham Gravel pits that is not being utilised together with the extended capacity at the Folkes site.

Furthermore,I trust you will accept that all my previous objections still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98221

Received: 21/09/2019

Respondent: Sue Swanston

Representation:

Thank you for your invitation to comment on the above.
I trust that you will accept all my previous objections and I categorically state that they all still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Full text:

Thank you for your invitation to comment on the above.
I trust that you will accept all my previous objections and I categorically state that they all still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98222

Received: 26/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Chris Dearmun

Representation:

Thank you for the invitation to comment.
I trust that you will accept that all my previous objections still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.

Full text:

Thank you for the invitation to comment.
I trust that you will accept that all my previous objections still stand.
I fully support the conclusions listed and the omission of MIN38 from the list of preferred options.