M25.1 Amenity:

Object

Representation ID: 99085

Received: 02/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Tim Haycock

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

M25.1 Of all the Allocated sites, MIN25 has by far and away the highest number of residential properties within 250 m of the proposed workings (with the exception of MIN40 which is an extension of an existing quarry). All of the other sites have less than 20 residential properties within 250 m of the proposed working area. The MIN25 site, unlike more suitable locations, is right in the middle of a village. This is quite contrary to your own Minerals Strategic Objectives, in particular MSO7 which states “To ensure potential impacts on the amenity of those people living in proximity to minerals development are effectively controlled, minimised and mitigated to acceptable levels”. This is unsound and not effective
M25.1 does not address light pollution in the winter months, at one of the highest elevations in the village. This is contrary to Section 2.4 of this document. This is unsound and not positively prepared
The allocation of this site is unsound and ineffective.

Object

Representation ID: 99086

Received: 02/11/2022

Respondent: Ms Tanya Fairlie

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

M25.1 Of all the Allocated sites, MIN25 has by far and away the highest number of residential properties within 250 m of the proposed workings (with the exception of MIN40 which is an extension of an existing quarry). All of the other sites have less than 20 residental properties within 250 m of the proposed working area. The MIN25 site, unlike more suitable locations ,is right in the middle of a village. This is quite contrary to your own Minerals Strategic Objectives ,in particular MSO7 which states “To ensure potential impacts on the amenity of those people living in proximity to minerals development are effectively controlled, minimised and mitigated to acceptable levels”. This is unsound and not effect
M25.1 does not address light pollution on in the winter months, at one of the highest elevations in the village. This is contrary to Section 2.4 of this document. This is unsound and not positively prepared.
The allocation of this site is unsound and ineffective.

Object

Representation ID: 99103

Received: 08/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Christopher Johnson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

M25.1 Does not address the matter of light pollution we benefit from 'dark skies' in this area where the night sky can be enjoyed the year round. The proposed site is central, very close to residents and is at one of the highest points in the village. I believe this to be contrary to section 2.4 of the document. Therefore, I believe this to be unsound & not positively prepared.
M25.1 Of all sites MIN25 has the highest amount of residential properties with in 250m of the proposed quarry the other sites having less than 20 within the same 250m. The proposed quarry is right in the middle of our Village is contrary to your own Minerals Strategic Objectives. MS07 state' to ensure potential impacts on the amenity of those people living in proximity to minerals development are effectively controlled minimised & mitigated to acceptable levels. Therefore, I believe this to be unsound & not positively prepared.
Soundness tests: Not justified, not effective, not positively prepared, not consistent with national policy

Object

Representation ID: 99107

Received: 02/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Lee Howell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

M25.1 - The impact this proposal has on Village life with many properties being effected is not Fair and Just.
This is an elevated site over Haddiscoe, Light pollution during winter months is a concern as well as the dust and noise issues that will evolve from this site being so close to village life.
Is consideration being given to the Mental Health and Wellbeing of the residents of the village that this potential extraction site will bring?
Soundness test: Not Justified, Not Effective, Not Positively prepared.

Object

Representation ID: 99116

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Downing

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

M25.1 Contrasting with all the sites, the MIN25 will be located central to the village and will have the highest number of residential properties within 250 m of the proposed workings. The other sites have 20 residential properties within a 250 m area. We note this is with the exception of MIN 40 which is an extension of an existing quarry. The extension to MIN40 is a real concern as Haddiscoe could potentially have the same adverse decision and problem with a never-ending workings in the middle of the village and residential area which could desecrate and violate the village. This contradicts the Minerals Strategic Objectives, in particular, MS07 which states "To ensure potential impacts on the amenity of those people living in proximity to minerals developments are effectively controlled, minimised and mitigated to acceptable levels".
Soundness test: Not effective

Object

Representation ID: 99153

Received: 07/11/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Holiday Properties

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

M25.1 The Haddiscoe site has the largest number of residential properties close to the proposal.
M25.1 There is no mention of addressing light pollution, which is an issue particularly in the Winter months.
Soundness test: Not consistent with National Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 99173

Received: 21/11/2022

Respondent: Mrs Julie Catmore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Contrary to section 2.4 the proposal does not address light pollution in winter months.
The site is at one of the highest elevations in the village.
Soundness test: Not positively prepared

Object

Representation ID: 99174

Received: 21/11/2022

Respondent: Mrs Julie Catmore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The MIN 25 site is located in the middle of a village impacting on a larger population than any other proposed site.
With ref to MS07 stating “To ensure potential impact on the amenity of those people living in proximity to minerals development are effectively controlled, minimised and mitigated to acceptable levels”.
Soundness test: Not effective

Object

Representation ID: 99207

Received: 05/12/2022

Respondent: Windmill Cottage Kennels

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposed plan for MIN 25 has far more residential properties than other sites, other than maybe one exception. I believe that light pollution especially during winter has not been taken into account and addressed and also this proposed site would have far more detrimental effects on the village in comparison to other potential sites.
Soundness test: Not Effective

Object

Representation ID: 99299

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Ray Long

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

M25.1 Light pollution, Section 2.4. As this proposed site will no doubt contain valuable plant machinery it will have to be lit after working hours for security purposes. This will provide what i could only imagine light pollution akin to Blackpool illuminations!! I enjoy the lack of industrial light in this village and i can only imagine what it would be like for the poor residents living next door to this light show.
Soundness test: Not Justified and Not Positively prepared

Object

Representation ID: 99302

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Stopit2

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

M25.1 Of all the allocated sites, MIN25 has by far and away the highest number of residential properties within 250 m of the proposed workings at 55 properties (with the exception of MIN40 which is an extension of an existing quarry). All of the other sites have less than 20 residential properties within 250 m of the proposed working area. The MIN25 site, unlike more suitable locations, is right in the middle of a village. This is quite contrary to your own Minerals Strategic Objectives, in particular MSO7 which states “To ensure potential impacts on the amenity of those people living in proximity to minerals development are effectively controlled, minimised and mitigated to acceptable levels”. Air Quality: 3.18 states that “Mineral extractions and associated development should be located , designed and operated to ensure no unacceptable impacts on Air Quality”. With the proximity to the village and with certain wind strengths and directions, Stopit 2 modelling has confirmed that the impact of MIN25 will extend to impact up to two thirds of the village (104 properties). Consequently the Stopit 2 association represents over 200 parishioners and only 3% are in favour of the proposal. This is unsound and not effective.

M25.1 does not address light pollution in the winter months, at one of the highest elevations in the village. This is contrary to Section 2.4 of this document. This is unsound and not positively prepared

Object

Representation ID: 99356

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Anthony Burton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proximity of the site to a large number RESIDENTIAL dwellings (PEOPLES HOMES) which are within 250m of the proposed site.
The site is right in the middle of the village, which I believe is contrary to you Mineral Strategic Objectives MS07 which states that the potential impact on the amenity of residents adjacent to the site are effectively minimised ,controlled and mitigated.to "acceptable levels ???" Currently nuisance noise from agricultural vehicles can be heard but fortunately this is on an infrequent basis during sowing and harvest times.
Air quality - Mineral extractions should be located, designed and operated to ensure no unacceptable impact on air quality.
Because the proposed site is so close to the Village under certain conditions modelling has confirmed that the impact of MIN25 will affect up 2/3rds of the Village.
Because of the Rural location of the Village there currently is minimal light pollution. The site is at one of the highest points of the village and during winter months and given the proposed operational hours of the site this is unacceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 99371

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs Eve Basford

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

More residential properties within 250m than any other site for consideration. Noise dust and light pollution etc will affect these properties the most.

Object

Representation ID: 99378

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Haddiscoe Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

M25.1 Of all the allocated sites, MIN25 has by far and away the highest number of residential properties within 250 m of the proposed workings at 55 properties (with the exception of MIN40 which is an extension of an existing quarry). All of the other sites have less than 20 residential properties within 250 m of the proposed working area. The MIN25 site, unlike more suitable locations, is right in the middle of a village. This is quite contrary to your own Minerals Strategic Objectives, in particular MSO7 which states “To ensure potential impacts on the amenity of those people living in proximity to minerals development are effectively controlled, minimised and mitigated to acceptable levels”. Air Quality: 3.18 states that “Mineral extractions and associated development should be located , designed and operated to ensure no unacceptable impacts on Air Quality”. This is unsound and not effective.
M25.1 does not address light pollution in the winter months, at one of the highest elevations in the village. This is contrary to Section 2.4 of this document. This is unsound and not positively prepared.
Soundness tests: Not Justified, Not Effective, Not Positively Prepared, Not Consistent with National Policy

Object

Representation ID: 99390

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Burton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

M25 - 1 Objections
The proximity of the site to a large number RESIDENTIAL dwellings (PEOPLES HOMES) which are within 250m of the proposed site.
The site is right in the middle of the village, which I believe is contrary to you Mineral Strategic Objectives MS07 which states that the potential impact on the amenity of residents adjacent to the site are effectively minimised ,controlled and mitigated.to "acceptable levels ???" Currently nuisance noise from agricultural vehicles can be heard but fortunately this is on an infrequent basis during sowing and harvest times
Air quality - Mineral extractions should be located, designed and operated to ensure no unacceptable impact on air quality
Because the proposed site is so close to the Village under certain conditions modelling has confirmed that the impact of MIN25 will affect up 2/3rds of the Village
Because of the Rural location of the Village there currently is minimal light pollution. The site is at one of the highest points of the village and during winter months and given the proposed operational hours of the site this is unacceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 99392

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Haddiscoe Parocial Church Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We wish to make objections to the proposed NW&WLP specific to the site at Crab Apple Lane Haddiscoe ref M25

M25 - 1 Objections
The proximity of the site to a large number RESIDENTIAL dwellings (PEOPLES HOMES) which are within 250m of the proposed site.
The site is right in the middle of the village, which I believe is contrary to you Mineral Strategic Objectives MS07 which states that the potential impact on the aminity of residents adjacent to the site are effectively minimised ,controlled and mitigated.to "acceptable levels ???" Currently nuisance noise from agricultural vehicles can be heard but fortunately this is on an infrequent basis during sowing and harvest times
Air quality - Mineral extractions should be located, designed and operated to ensure no unacceptable impact on air quality
Because the proposed site is so close to the Village under certain conditions modelling has confirmed that the impact of MIN25 will affect up 2/3rds of the Village
Because of the Rural location of the Village there currently is minimal light pollution. The site is at one of the highest points of the village and during winter months and given the proposed operational hours of the site this is unacceptable

Object

Representation ID: 99438

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Kennedy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

M25.1 Looking at it, MIN25 has by far the highest number of residential properties within 250 metres of the site. All other proposed sites have less than 20 properties. Why? This goes against your own minerals strategic objectives which states it ensures potential impacts on those people living in proximity to the development are controlled, minimised, and mitigated to acceptable levels. This is unsound!
M25.1 Also does not address anything in regard to light pollution especially in winter months. The area nominated is actually the highest elevation within the village. This again is unsound and not prepared well.
Soundness test: Not justified and not effective

Object

Representation ID: 99442

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Kennedy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

MSO6 states “to ensure the sustainable and expedient delivery of mineral extraction whist protecting people from harm and mitigating against unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts”. Once such cumulative impact is the call for sites for housing allocation in the Greater Norwich development plan. This includes 4 sites in and around A143 and the middle of the village. If some or all of them approved, the timeframes proposed would overlap each other having the potential for at least 2 major construction sites working at either end of the village working at the same time. This is frankly ridiculous, unsound, and ineffective.
Soundness test: Not justified and not effective