Preferred Options consultation document

Object

Representation ID: 98246

Received: 22/10/2019

Respondent: Haddiscoe Parish Council

Please find attached our comments to the above from Haddiscoe Parish Council.

As a Parish Council, we have read the consultation document and canvassed the opinions of our Parishioners. We would comment on the document text as follows :
* M25.1 does not include mention of light pollution, at one of the highest elevations in the village
* M25.2 a further 80 HGV movements is unacceptable to us, and can only contribute further to the dangerous conditions on our single track roads. What is not mentioned in the consultation document is that if the material is processed at Norton and then transported to Gt Yarmouth or Lowestoft, a further 80 HGV movements through our village will add to the traffic count
* M25.4 notes that there are three listed buildings within 250 m of the site and a further 10 listed buildings within 2 Kms. The noise and additional traffic will adversely impact on the setting of these historic buildings.
* M25.8 describes "a small disused mineral working" on the Eastern boundary. This piece of land belongs to this Parish and is used as a recreational ground for children playing and dog walkers. The proposed development will impact on this village asset. The daily lives of the inhabitants of "properties along the northern boundary" will be similarly blighted.
* M25.9 is misleading in that it infers that the only reason Planning was refused and the appeal in 2014 was rejected, was the part of that proposed development south of the B1136. This is not the case. In his proof of evidence in 2014, Simon Smith (Planning NCC) quotes the original grounds for refusal, including "The landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development, including the construction of artificial bunds and land-raised areas would be detrimental to the appearance and rural character of the area" and "The proposed development would adversely affect the amenities of nearby residents due to increased noise, dust and traffic that would arise from the proposed quarry" which applies to the area as a whole, not just in the vicinity of St Mary's church.
* M25.21 seems to have missed the line of Overhead power lines through the middle of the site.
* M25.23 does not detail the fact that to fill a hole will take as long as it took to dig it, with just as many HGV movements and taking the same amount of time
The inclusion of this site in the allocation list does not look acceptable from our, or an overall perspective. In particular :
* Is there really a need to develop this site ? Again, in his proof of evidence in 2014, Simon Smith (Planning NCC) states "Given a current landbank of of over seven years and Suffolk's high landbank levels and the likely approval of an extension at Norton Subcourse, if this proposal does not go ahead there will be sufficient other local sources of minerals." We cannot see how this situation has changed in just five years and cannot justify the negative impact on our community
* This consultation does not appear to join up with another consultation which starts one day after this one closes. This is the call for sites for housing allocation in the Greater Norwich Development plan, including four sites adjacent to the main road in the middle of this village. If some or all of these sites are adopted, then the timeframes will overlap and there is the potential for two major construction sites working either end of our village, at the same time, which would be incredibly disruptive to our daily lives.
We would urge you to de-select M25 from consideration.