Site WS6 Land north of Main Road, Crimplesham

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98231

Received: 12/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Sally Pullen

Representation Summary:

This site is to be returned to agriculture and landscaped. The impact of a waste bulking plant would compromise this The estimated increase of 20 lorries (this I feel would be more) would cause more queuing on junctions already at breaking point more so during beet season (A1122 & A134 Stradsett ) This may also cause hold up turning on to main road Crimplesham of A134 This could be alleviated by going through Crimp as most Skip lorries 7.5 tons .
100% increase in noise from processing As extraction has ceased on this site the only noise is loading and unloading reversing bleepers and concrete crusher sometimes.They have a water pump going but that has been sound proofed. So clanging and banging from skip lorries constant heavy plant (360 digger grab forklifts ) would cause a huge amount of noise pollution The other worries are of the increase in insects and general rubbish that could blow around .Also huge mountains of wood not only does this encourage vermin it's a fire hazard we have seen this happen already in this area (Glazewing) What or where would the likes of plaster board / asbestos go skips have all sorts in them Dust is already a problem ? This is barely under control now so a supposed 20 lorry increase would have a drastic effect on all The slow progress on returning this exhausted quarry to agriculture and countryside should be addressed before any other planning or extraction right are given . It would be nice to see some progress on the planning agreement they have now.

Full text:

This site is to be returned to agriculture and landscaped. The impact of a waste bulking plant would compromise this The estimated increase of 20 lorries (this I feel would be more) would cause more queuing on junctions already at breaking point more so during beet season (A1122 & A134 Stradsett ) This may also cause hold up turning on to main road Crimplesham of A134 This could be alleviated by going through Crimp as most Skip lorries 7.5 tons .
100% increase in noise from processing As extraction has ceased on this site the only noise is loading and unloading reversing bleepers and concrete crusher sometimes.They have a water pump going but that has been sound proofed. So clanging and banging from skip lorries constant heavy plant (360 digger grab forklifts ) would cause a huge amount of noise pollution The other worries are of the increase in insects and general rubbish that could blow around .Also huge mountains of wood not only does this encourage vermin it's a fire hazard we have seen this happen already in this area (Glazewing) What or where would the likes of plaster board / asbestos go skips have all sorts in them Dust is already a problem ? This is barely under control now so a supposed 20 lorry increase would have a drastic effect on all The slow progress on returning this exhausted quarry to agriculture and countryside should be addressed before any other planning or extraction right are given . It would be nice to see some progress on the planning agreement they have now.

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 99008

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk

Representation Summary:

WS6.1 Amenity
The site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 which can affect the health and amenity of local residents.
The nearest residential property is 98m from the site boundary. There are 3 residential properties within 250m of the site boundary. The settlement of Crimplesham is 480m away. The greatest noise and dust impacts are likely to be within 100m of a source, if uncontrolled.
Therefore, the site poses a risk and we would require a planning application to include a noise, air quality, odour, and lighting assessment, along with details of appropriate mitigation measures to reduce both amenity and health impacts on nearby receptors.
It must be ensured that the preparation or use of the site will not result in an exceedance of the national air quality objectives, or an AQMA may need to be declared or allocation deemed unsuitable.
These assessments should also include the cumulative emissions from nearby allocation MIN 32.

WS6.2 Highway Access
The site would use the existing access onto Main Road (C543) and turn east onto the A134. The site is not within an AQMA. The estimated number of HGV movements is 35 per day (17 in and 17 out). To ensure nearby residents are not negatively affected by these movements, a transport assessment should be undertaken, taking into account air quality and dust emissions from additional HGV movements along Main Road and A134. The cumulative effects of movements from allocation MIN32 should also be included.

Full text:


Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019

Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.

Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.

Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.

Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.

Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.

[see attached table for comments on individual sites]

Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019

Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework

Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.

Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.

Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.

[see attached table for comments on individual sites]