Skip to content

PLEASE NOTE: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.

Representations on Minerals Site Allocations: Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) Consultation - MIN 38 - Fritton

Representation ID: 74753

OBJECT Ms C Davis

Summary:

I would like to add my voice to others who oppose permission for the mining of aggregates to be granted at this site.

I am aware a vast area of trees has already been felled possibly assuming that permission for mining will be granted. I feel it is very important for tourism and wildlife that the few remaining larger areas of woodland/forest are protected. I would hope there is some requirement by law that the owner of said land should replant the area which has been felled.

Allowing the mining would cause extreme disruption to local road networks in addition to ruining the beauty of surrounding landscape for decades to come.

Representation ID: 74752

OBJECT Ms I Radford

Summary:

I'm writing to say that I strongly object to the very suggestion that Waveney Forest/Fritton Wood would be destroyed and replaced with an enormous gravel pit.

I thought that the council had declared this an unacceptable proposal, but I now understand that it is being reconsidered.

I don't quite understand why the proposal is back on the cards. I urge you to recognise the major disadvantages of such a proposal and the severe impact of the loss of an extremely important area for people and for wildlife, and to reject this proposal as totally unsuitable and unacceptable.

I live in Dereham but visit the area from time to time.

I was very shocked to find out about this example of an investment company working with a mineral mining company to devastate a much loved local forest for profit. I visited the wood first a couple of years ago in spring and was very impressed. It was a beautiful, peaceful and pleasant place to walk, with the paths through the woodlands -- conifers with some birch trees and a few bird cherry trees in flower, and the reeds and Waveney River right next to it.

I find it very hard to understand why a popular wood, used by local people and visitors such as myself, and people from Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, is seen as dispensable. Woodlands are extremely important for recreation, particularly in an area where there isn't much choice -- agricultural land is not usually open apart from a few foot paths, and the seaside though lovely is a little way away and very busy especially in summer. Forests have a remarkable capacity to swallow up visitors -- there can be a lot of visitors but as the people are dispersed the forest remains peaceful.

Peaceful is not what the area will be if this is allowed to go ahead -- there will be continual noise from machinery, lorries, not to mention travel disruption, and pollution.

I understand there is some important wildlife in the wood, and archaeological remains.

And it is within the Norfolk Broads, which makes it even more unbelievable that such a destructive proposal could even be considered.

I understand that the proposal is not only to destroy the forest but the reed bed alongside the river. Surely that would have a very destructive effect on the Norfolk Broads and River Waveney -- much used by tourists to the area.

I have read the amended section of the mineral sites allocation document for MIN 38 and take issue with a couple of points in your conclusions.

You say that in favour of allocation is the fact that the conifer woodland on the eastern part of the site is reaching the end of its life and will therefore need to be harvested irrespective of whether mineral working takes place.

I don't believe this is a point in its favour. If there wasn't mineral allocation then a condition of a felling licence would be to replace the woodland appropriately for wildlife and for people. That would happen a lot sooner and in a way much more acceptable to locals and visitors if there wasn't a long-term mineral extraction going on in the site.

You say that the site could also be subject to very good restoration scheme, offering significant ecological gains of wet woodland and lowland heath land were both included.

But people love the forest as it is now, and would no doubt use a restored woodland -- that doesn't need to be mineral extraction for the woodland to be restored. Part of the site is heathland and reed beds, but part of the restoration would need to be woodland for people to enjoy and for wildlife.

You say that there would be continued public access during extraction and even greater public access on restoration. What sort of access will there be to a gravel pit, and what kind of pleasure can anyone take in such a visit? Losing a large area of beautiful forest which is enjoyable to walk through, and replacing it with a walk along the edge of a working gravel pits with enormous machinery, noise, dust and pollution -- I don't think that's much of a substitute. And increased access after restoration is a poor substitute -- what are people going to do in the meantime? Retaining an existing tree belt as suggested in the conclusion would not be enough.

I note that in your conclusions you list the disadvantages -- impact on Broads authority area, on wildlife, on woodland habitat, loss of access, noise and dust and archaeological impact.

I'm pleased that in the document you come to the conclusion that the negative impacts outweigh the positives and find the scheme unacceptable.

I don't quite understand why the proposal is back on the cards. I urge you to recognise the major disadvantages of such a proposal and the severe impact of the loss of an extremely important area for people and for wildlife, and to reject this proposal as totally unsuitable and unacceptable.

Representation ID: 74751

OBJECT Ms D Smith

Summary:

A beautiful natural resource that preserves wildlife, aids the environment and gives families a place to go away from the tv where the kids can explore the environment as well as their imaginations. Once the quarrying is finished it will no doubt be used for land fill or quickly filled and built on. Whatever the case, it will be just another blot on the landscape in a country that already has one of the lowest woodland coverage in Europe.

Representation ID: 74750

OBJECT Ms T Hinton

Summary:

I am writing to register my concern at the possibility that Waveney Forest (Fritton Woods) is under threat of being turned into an aggregate pit.

AMENITY: If this happens it will have a incredibly negative affect on the people who live in the area. Great Yarmouth is one of the most deprived areas in the country and can ill afford to loose somewhere which is free to visit and provides a healthy natural place for children to play.

AMENITY: I am lucky enough to live close to the woods and go there several times a week, either horse riding or walking and it is a beautiful place. The logging has already begun in one area and it is heartbreaking to see the trees being taken down. Many people use the woods for their recreation, enjoying the environment with their children and dogs.

HIGHWAYS: I am also concerned that the pit will also cause increased traffic and pollution on an already busy A143. I have to use this particular piece of road everyday when I drive to Haddiscoe train station so I am fully aware of the number of large vehicles already using this small road. Heavy traffic going in and out of the area would simply bring the traffic to a standstill and have a detrimental effect on the people who live in the area.

This country has so little wild areas left but the very little we have left could given up simply for commercial interests - that is unbelievably
shortsighted - please please do what you can to save our woods.

Representation ID: 74749

OBJECT Ms S Stock

Summary:

I am writing to express my concern and disappointment regarding the possible development of Waveney Forest (Fritton Woods) as an aggregate pit.

ECOLOGY & AMENITY: Fritton Woods does not only provide a natural habit for numerous species of wildlife but also a peaceful and safe place to be enjoyed by families, horse riders and walkers to name but a few. Great Yarmouth is already a deprived area and to destroy something that provides a free and healthy place which encourages our future generations to enjoy the simple things in life is utterly saddening, especially given the current tendency of people leading too sedentary a lifestyle and many being obese.

HIGHWAYS: I am concerned about the effect the increase in pollution, from the pit and the numerous vehicles travelling to and from it will have on the local environment. The road system in and around Great Yarmouth is not good on the best of days, and I feel that the increase in traffic from the pit, especially on the A143, will only make things worse.

Representation ID: 74748

OBJECT Ms K van den Berg

Summary:

I am writing to express my concern and disappointment regarding the possible development of Waveney Forest (Fritton Woods) as an aggregate pit.

AMENITY: We use Fritton Woods regularly for walks, to introduce my young family to nature, to get some fresh air and enjoy one of the only remaining public woodland sites close by. Its one of the few areas left where you can escape traffic and noise and let young children have a safe explore. Great Yarmouth is already a deprived area and to destroy something that provides a free and healthy place which encourages our future generations to enjoy the simple things in life is devastating.

HIGHWAYS: Living in Bradwell, I am also concerned about the effect the increase in pollution, from the pit and the numerous vehicles travelling to and from it, will have on the local environment. The road system in and around this area is poor on the best of days, and I feel that the increase in traffic from the pit, especially on the A143, will only make things worse.

ECOLOGY: Destroying forest will also destroy natural habitat areas for such a vast amount of wildlife that can be seen in Fritton Woods.

Representation ID: 74747

OBJECT Ms T Oldham

Summary:

I am writing to express my concern and disappointment regarding the possible development of Waveney Forest (Fritton Woods) as an aggregate pit.

ECOLOGY & AMENITY: Fritton Woods does not only provide a natural habit for numerous species of wildlife but also a peaceful and safe place to be enjoyed by families, horse riders and walkers to name but a few. Great Yarmouth is already a deprived area and to destroy something that provides a free and healthy place which encourages our future generations to enjoy the simple things in life is utterly saddening.

HIGHWAYS: I am concerned about the effect the increase in pollution, from the pit and the numerous vehicles travelling to and from it, will have on the local environment. The road system in and around Great Yarmouth is not good on the best of days, and I feel that the increase in traffic from the pit, especially on the A143, will only make things worse.

Representation ID: 74746

OBJECT Ms J Ray

Summary:

I am writing to you to express my devastation at the possibility that the Waveney Forest (Fritton Woods) is under consideration for a development as an aggregates pit. I appreciate that our ever expanding society requires resources, and the 'not on my back door' argument solves nothing, but I really cannot express enough how strongly I feel this would be a mistake.

I am lucky enough to live very close to this wonderful wildlife habitat and walk my 2 dogs in the woods most days. This means that I see just how many people use and enjoy this precious space. Dog walkers, joggers, children making dens, families exploring, horse riders and cyclists are all common and frequent sights, this woodland really is appreciated and used.

Also for consideration is the impact on wildlife in the area, the local heritage of the army camp and old train line, and the increased traffic on the already dangerous A143.

Representation ID: 74745

OBJECT Ms S Sayers

Summary:

I am writing to you to express my devastation at the possibility that the Waveney Forest (Fritton Woods) is under consideration for a development as an aggregates pit. I appreciate that our ever expanding society requires resources, and the 'not on my back door' argument solves nothing, but I really cannot express enough how strongly I feel this would be a mistake.

I am lucky enough to live very close to this wonderful wildlife habitat and horse ride in the woods most days. This means that I see just how many people use and enjoy this precious space. Dog walkers, joggers, children making dens, families exploring, horse riders and cyclists are all common and frequent sights, this woodland really is apprectiated and used.

Also for consideration is the impact on wildlife in the area, the local heritage of the army camp and old train line, and the increased traffic on the already dangerous A143.

Representation ID: 74744

OBJECT Ms S Roach

Summary:

Amenity - Please don't let them close down our/everyones woods Mr. Murphy. The kids need a place like fritton woods to run & explore & climb trees and play hide & seek. Its a great place for water fights too!!

Representation ID: 74743

OBJECT Ms L Chalmers

Summary:

Amenity - Lets hope our beautiful forest is saved because with the price of fuel we locals will be walking through there on day trips for holidays - as we can't afford to travel further and somehow a gravel pit doesn't seem like a vacation option.

Representation ID: 74742

OBJECT Fritton with St Olaves parish council (Mr K Nunn)

Summary:

Surely it is time to call a halt to such an expensive waste of ratepayers resources and firmly back the people and immediately declare the site unacceptable again.

Representation ID: 74741

OBJECT Mr M McDonnell

Summary:

Save Fritton Woods

Representation ID: 74740

OBJECT Miss C Cotton

Summary:

Please save Fritton Woods from being turned into a commercial enterprise.

This is obviously what will happen if the Government allows all our Forests to be sold off to people who just want to make money at the general publics expense. It is so sad.

Representation ID: 74739

OBJECT Mr A Myers

Summary:

I have made 2 camps in that wood and my friends mum lives in the village of Fritton. We love it.

Representation ID: 74738

OBJECT Mr M Collins

Summary:

Please forward my letter of objection to the Min 38 proposal at Waveney Forest.

The Great Yarmouth area is not in need of any further supply of aggregates as we have a local working site in Burgh Castle which provides for our regions' needs and I believe will do so for the next 10 years at least.

If the Norwich area requires further sites for its' provision of aggregates then surely it's obvious to choose a site closer to Norwich and remove MIN 38 from the list.

Representation ID: 74663

OBJECT Mrs J Pope

Summary:

This is just to say that I am still strongly against any extraction of minerals from Fritton + Waveney woods.

Representation ID: 74121

OBJECT Mr M Henrique

Summary:

Amenity: We gotta try and save the Woods for the people man. Me and Tim went there on a bike ride, it's lush there!! Crying shame they want to cut it down though. I went there last Saturday it's such a lovely place .

Representation ID: 74120

OBJECT Mr S Lacey

Summary:

Amenity: It's well good to camp out in Fritton Woods.

Representation ID: 74119

OBJECT Ms E Sutton

Summary:

Ecology - Went to fritton woods for a walk a little while ago, saw so much wildlife, in fact more than I've ever seen out there before. Best of all a baby Adder!! The first wild adder I've ever seen! Save Fritton Woods.

Representation ID: 74118

OBJECT Mr C Jacobs

Summary:

Ecology - Waveney Forest in Fritton is now the home of the Giant African land snail. I have received two photographs and sent them to the Suffolk mollusc recorder who have duly confirmed them.

Representation ID: 74117

OBJECT Alex Ouaddane

Summary:

Amenity - Fritton Woods is such an amazing childhood place. We have got to save it. Please help us.

Representation ID: 74113

OBJECT Ms S Sayers

Summary:

Amenity - Fritton Woods is enjoyed by such a large number of people, and has been for many years. It would be a complete tragedy to lose it.
Highways - Also living locally I am concerned about the increase of traffic on a relatively small road.

Representation ID: 74112

OBJECT Ms S Stock

Summary:

Amenity - Have walked and ridden in Fritton Woods for many years - at least 25 in fact. I am dismayed at the plans. Too often we are accused of being inactive, so why take away a beautiful natural resource that many people use for walking and keeping fit and active.

Representation ID: 74111

OBJECT Ms L Johnson

Summary:

Highways - Having learned of the proposed haul road from the aggregates plant to the A143 I must say I am quite horrified that this is being taken into consideration by NCC Highways.

I must point out that, having measured the road from St. Olaves Bridge to the New Road corner, I can clearly state that this road, in 3 places, does not "measure up" to an A category road. It is as narrow as a B road in these measured 3 points and HGVs and other large vehicles, such as tractors, constantly mount the grass verges on a daily basis - wearing away the high banks and thus making the exposed trees with their root systems very susceptible to collapse. This is another accident waiting to happen without the daily worry of a further 100 HGVs on this road. Do the right thing, save Fritton Woods.

Representation ID: 74110

OBJECT Ms T Oldham

Summary:

Amenity - I have enjoyed walking in Fritton Woods for many years and would hate to see it destroyed.
Ecology, Highways & Amenity - I am also concerned with the effect it will have on the environment, both in terms of wildlife and increased traffic congestion, not to mention the pollution and disruption to our lives.

Representation ID: 74109

OBJECT Ms J Oxborough

Summary:

I disagree with the MIN 38 Proposal.

Representation ID: 74108

OBJECT Fritton Action Rescue Group (Mrs Jan Burton)

Summary:

Photographic Amenity - Winner England - East : The Human Landscape Category in BBC a Digital Picture of Britain [winning photograph of abandoned car in Fritton Woods supplied]

Representation ID: 74107

OBJECT Mr Daryl Petersen

Summary:

Amenity - I regularly take trips to the woods, have done for as long as I can remember. Levelling them would be an outrage! Save Fritton Woods.

Representation ID: 74106

OBJECT Mr C Dearmun

Summary:

We recently picked up a reference to this document, issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to "set out the policies and considerations that the Government expects Mineral Planning Authorities (MPAs) to follow in preparing mineral and waste development schemes", from a response by Brett's consultants to dust concerns raised by Mr.McIntyre.

Prior to this, we had been unaware of this document and, having now studied it, would like to seriously question whether a number of these policies and considerations have been followed in the case of MIN38. Of particular concern is that given the strictures placed on developments within National Parks and the Broads, how the Waveney Forest came to be included in a list of potential sites for mineral extraction in the first place.

The following are specific references from MPS2 which we believe are at odds with the conduct of MIN38 :-

Para 4) "MPAs should.......ensure that......the transport of minerals are kept to an absolute minimum". Given the Burgh Castle pit's much nearer proximity to Great Yarmouth, and it's ability to satisfy GY's requirements for the foreseeable future, this surely precludes the opening of another pit further away.
"MPAs should......protect areas of nationally-designated landscape or archaeological value,cultural heritage or nature conservation from mineral development, other than in exceptional cicumstances where it has been demonstrated that the proposed development is in the public interest". We would question what"exceptional" circumstances" exist in relation to MIN38, and how it has been "demonstrated that the proposed development is in the public interest" when exactly the opposite would appear to be the case.

Para 5) "MPAs should liaise appropriately with......English Nature, the Countryside Agency......voluntary conservation and environmental groups". Brett's revised application had not even been referred to the Broads Authority let alone any of the others. You stated, at your recent meeting with our group, that you were not obliged to do so, but MPS2 directly contradicts this.

Para 8) "Mineral working applications....... in or affecting the following designations(National Parks, the Broads)..... should be subject to the most rigorous examination, normally including an Environmental Statement, regardless of the size of the site". Indeed, the Norfolk Planners first deemed MIN38 "Not Acceptable", citing it's first of 6 reasons as part of the site coming within the Broadlands National Park. This remained the case in Brett's revised proposal, which bizarrely was allowed to proceed to the verge of the Planners' recommendation being changed to Acceptable". The reason for this has been asked many times but never adequately answered.

Para 11) "Development plan policies and proposals for mineral extraction and associated development should take into account: the impacts of mineral working, such as visual intrusion, dewatering,water pollution,noise,dust and fine particulates,blasting and traffic". All of these will be adversely impacted on to a critical degree in a site placed so close to large numbers of private dwellings.
It further states" the impacts on landscape,agricultural land,soil resources,ecology and wildlife, including severance of landscape and habitat loss, and impacts on sites of nature conservation, archaeological and cultural heritage value". Again, all of these would be impacted to some degree, many of them greatly.

Para 12) "MPA's should also have regard where relevant to cumulative impacts of simultaneous and/or succesive working of a number of sites in a wider area of commercially viable deposits. These may affect communities and localities over an extended period, depending the nature, age and size of the site". Burgh Castle pit already working and with 13 years more supply at current estimates. MIN38 would blight the village of Fritton for 22 years!

Paras 14, 15 & 16 refer to the discussions developers should have with numerous bodies prior to submitting proposals to MPAs. Has any of this actually happened?

Para 18) "Any.....loss of amenity must be kept to an acceptable minimum....... Where effective mitigation of unacceptable impact is not possible, permission should be refused". Anybody viewing the "mitigations" in Brett's revised proposal can be in no doubt that the loss of amenity for walkers, dog exercising, birdwatching etc., will be more or less total, as will the WW11 sites dotted throughout the area.

Representation ID: 74105

OBJECT Mr J Spicer

Summary:

I am emailing you to express my concern with regards to the demolition of Fritton Woods to be flattened and quarried for over 2 million tons of aggregate.

Heritage - Whilst I can understand the value for this in money terms, I can not comprehend the loss of a wonderful wood. This area of woodland has been here for many years and was a source for troops during WWII. The secret army were undercover here and their undercover rooms can still be found today. This land and area is part of our great Norfolk Heritage, so how can it be justified for it to be demolished? We are not allowed to demolish buildings of a certain age and yet you are proposing to destroy a part of history within our County?

Fritton Woods is an area that should be highly regarded as part of our national heritage NOT an area to be demolished and quarried. I feel every part of our history which our fellow people fought hard for during the war should NEVER be destroyed.

Therefore I propose you reconsider this action and look elsewhere to quarry. I am sure within Norfolk there are places which do not have the history Fritton Woods hold which would in turn give you the resources you need with out destroying our heritage.

Representation ID: 74104

OBJECT Ms J Gardner

Summary:

Ecology - I dont know if its any help but this summer I saw some white admiral butterflies in Fritton woods and I have pictures - they are a UK BAP priority species........maybe this could help a little in stopping such an amazing place being lost!

Representation ID: 74103

OBJECT Ms J Hubbard

Summary:

Amenity - Over the years I have spent many a happy hour or so wandering through this beautiful wood - be rain or shine, there is always something new to discover and new friends to meet.........

Representation ID: 74092

OBJECT Ms D Gillett

Summary:

Amenity & landscape - Fritton Woods is one of the most beautiful, peaceful places I have ever been to. It MUST be saved. Please help.

Representation ID: 74091

OBJECT Mr P Kitchen

Summary:

Amenity - After my posting of leaflets in Bradwell informing residents of the MIN 38 proposal, the feedback I got was that the Bradwellians' biggest threat is the loss of green space and amenity.

Highways - This is secondary to the road situation which is obviously important to Frittonians.

Representation ID: 74090

OBJECT Mr S Drewry

Summary:

Amenity & landscape - I don't live in the area anymore, but used to love walking through Fritton woods.

They cannot do this - where else in the area can you wander round the woods and see such a stunning, quiet place? Very different to the boring marshes so typical of the area!

Representation ID: 74089

OBJECT Mr T Nixon

Summary:

Amenity - Leave the woods alone. I have been going there for years. It's the perfect place just to chill out! 'save the woods'.

Representation ID: 74088

OBJECT Ms G Hannon

Summary:

Landscape & Amenity - No they can't be allowed to do this. Fritton Woods - so beautiful. Lets all get behind the petition and object. We need places like this. Save it for all to enjoy.

Representation ID: 74087

OBJECT Ms S Lamb

Summary:

Ecology & landscape - How sick are those that can kill off all those beautiful trees? and also have a conscience to killing all of the wildlife that goes with the woods? How sick are they? We are supposed to be saving our planet not letting people make profits for themselves, how greedy is greedy?

Representation ID: 74086

OBJECT Mrs T Cain

Summary:

Amenity - I used to walk in Fritton Woods when I was very small, now I walk my kids there too. This special place must be saved, we've lost too many places like this .......

Representation ID: 74085

OBJECT Ms D Smith

Summary:

Ecology & Landscape & Amenity - A Beautiful natural resource that preserves wildlife, aids the environment and gives families a place to go away from the tv - where the kids can explore the environment as well as their imaginations. Once the quarrying is finished it will no doubt be used for land fill or quickly filled and built on. Whatever the case it will be just another blot on the landscape in a country that already has one of the lowest woodland coverages in Europe.

Representation ID: 74084

OBJECT Miss S Cattee

Summary:

Keep it man. It brings joy to people!

Representation ID: 74083

OBJECT Mr S Leaver

Summary:

ECOLOGY & LANDSCAPE -
It's weird .......Anything for a few £££££££s. But they go on and on about this "gobal warming" and one of the things about trees - don't they actually recycle some of the impurities out of the air? And its such a beautiful place at all times of the year. What a waste. Think they should wake up and see what's happening, as there is no other place, even close like this, around this area !

Representation ID: 74082

OBJECT Ms L Cooper

Summary:

Ecology - ‎"The allocation would have potential to affect protected species or their habitats and Biodiversity Action Plan species or their habitats" surely that should be enough to NOT go ahead with this plan, as many people around the county are working hard to restore the habitats ruined by past activities. Have they learnt nothing! Petition signed. Hope they listen to it.

Representation ID: 74081

OBJECT Ms S A Baxter

Summary:

Amenity - What the heck is aggregate? Is it fun for my children to visit? I think not...........boo hiss!

Representation ID: 74080

OBJECT Mr S Robinson

Summary:

Grew up in and went to school in Somerleyton and I know these woods very well. Not sure what is happening here but I sure hope Hugh Crossley steps in and saves these woods.....

Representation ID: 74079

OBJECT Miss S Angus

Summary:

LANDSCAPE - Please please, please leave Fritton Woods as it is. We have nothing as beautiful as these woods, and to cut it down is just a ridiculous proposal. Natural beauty should never be tarnished.

Representation ID: 74078

OBJECT Mr Rupert Read

Summary:

LANDSCAPE & ECOLOGY - Our land and our countryside badly need to be preserved, not despoiled. It would be quite wrong to destroy Fritton woods merely so that the sand beneath it can be frittered away on unnecessary building projects tarmacking over East Anglia. Green Party Councillors such as myself will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with all the good people opposing any potential unacceptable act of County Council-sponsored environmental vandalism in Fritton.

Representation ID: 74077

OBJECT Ms L Webster

Summary:

LANDSCAPE - Our beautiful countryside is in danger of disappearing if more of us don't make our voices heard!

Representation ID: 74076

OBJECT Ms R Cousins

Summary:

AMENITY - Fritton woods was my and my friends favourite place to bike to when we were kids - and now I take my son there to enjoy it too. I've never been and not seen anyone else there. Everybody I know knows where it is and most people use it too.
ECOLOGY - What about if they reintroduce sea eagles here like they plan to, smaller birds will probably try to relocate and what more perfect a place on the doorstep. It is home to scores of wildlife, fungi and fauna - all things I want my son to grow up to respect. If we have any hope of repairing the damage already done it lies with his generation and it's not something you can learn from a recounted tale or a text book, it's a feeling that starts inside, spurred by the inherited memory of survival. For the sake of our planet please.

Representation ID: 74075

OBJECT Ms M J Colby

Summary:

LANDSCAPE - Such a shame to destroy such a lovely place. Why does it have to be here, at this time? Why can't they pick on somewhere less beautiful? Save Fritton Woods.

Representation ID: 74074

OBJECT Ms E R Spilling

Summary:

AMENITY - I lived in Lowestoft all my life, and I remember Fritton Woods being a massive part of my childhood in the school holidays with my mum and sister. If something happens it would be horrible and very very very sad!

Representation ID: 74073

OBJECT Mr M Barnard

Summary:

AMENITY - We must all try to save this lovely woodland. We often go for a Sunday walk there and it's so lovely and calm.
LANDSCAPE - The proposed quarry will destroy the landscape!

Representation ID: 74070

OBJECT Mr John Burton and 1 other

Summary:

AMENITY & LANDSCAPE - The beautiful, tranquil Waveney Forest is an area of land in Fritton that many people get enjoyment out of visiting and have done so for over 50 years now. People visit for many different reasons and it has become a part of their daily lives, and certainly is a big part of the landscape of St.Olaves and Fritton.

ECOLOGY - It is the habitat of an abundance of rarely seen birds and butterflies and other wildlife and in just 5 minutes of standing quietly within the Forest we experienced the sights and sounds of - siskin, woodpecker, tree creepers, goldcrests, tawny owl, willow and coal tits, peacock, gatekeeper, meadow brown and fritillary butterflies. Oh what a haven of wonderful wildlife - what an education!

ARCHAEOLOGY - The remains of the WW2 structures underground in the woods are awesomely breathtaking - we can almost feel the battle experience that was undertaken by the many brave men who protected this stretch of once heathland. The Waveney Forest should remain a shrine to those who fought to keep their "island" of Fritton and St. Olaves out of the hands of the German Army - do not render their fight worthless. Surely, this needs to be a protected, historical/archeological site of interest just for the above reason alone?

It is absolutely shocking, especially in today's climate, to think that anyone would consider the destruction of a Forest to make way for an aggregate pit - to date there are over 20,000 signatures of people who do not consider this reasonable at all.

As we understand it there are another 102 sites that have been allocated for consideration - all of which are open-field sites and we do not agree with the reasoning behind the inclusion of a beautiful Forest when you have all these other options. Its inclusion is not because it is the closest to Gt. Yarmouth because Gt. Yarmouth have said that they do not require aggregates. The existing Burgh Castle site is closer to Gt.Yarmouth and has reserves of 13 years should Gt.Yarmouth change its mind. Why would it still be on the NCC list!

Yes, we all know that pine trees are croppable but once the crop has been gathered, replant and allow our children and our childrens' children to grow up alongside the newly replanted Forest - giving them the wonderful memories that we all have.

Please don't kill the Waveney Forest as you would be killing much wildlife and many people's lives along with it. This Forest breathes - keep it alive for all to experience.

Representation ID: 74069

OBJECT Ms K Greenland

Summary:

Amenity & ecology - Have lived in Norfolk all my life and feel these woods are VERY important to the local people and environment.

Representation ID: 74068

OBJECT Ms J Batley

Summary:

Amenity & landscape - Fritton Woods is a beautiful place and a great area to teach your children about wildlife and nature. It should definitely be left alone. Have had many great days at these Woods.

Representation ID: 74067

OBJECT Mrs C Butcher

Summary:

EDUCATION - I have just come across an educational site on the internet and a little boy's story about his encounters in Fritton Woods [story provided in full representation].
It is quite obvious to see that these woods are an inspiration to children and allows their imagination to flourish and be creative. Eduction of our children is paramount.
I wonder what he could create from a trip around an aggregates site? Not quite the same somehow.

Representation ID: 74066

OBJECT Mr J Norton

Summary:

I remember David Cameron saying fairly recently let's bring it on the 'people power' where the people take charge of what happens in their communities. What happened to that?


Representation ID: 74065

OBJECT Mr D Cole

Summary:

AMENITY - I have just read about this in The Advertiser and I am disgusted that this is even being considered. Fritton woods is the only decent sized woodland in this area where tha public have the freedom to roam. That amongst many other reasons is why this project should NEVER go ahead.

Representation ID: 74064

OBJECT J Lawson-Brown

Summary:

Amenity - My kids love fritton woods, it's our place we go to, specially when we can't afford adventure island. Anyway, like my five year old says "we need trees to breathe!" SAVE FRITTON WOODS.

Representation ID: 74063

OBJECT Ms M Imberechts

Summary:

LANDSCAPE & ECOLOGY - Every year woods, covering a surface as large as the entire UK are disappearing in the world. Please don't rob this wonderful piece of England from its woods. From a Belgian who lost her heart to your countryside.

Representation ID: 74062

OBJECT Mr R Dunn

Summary:

AMENITY - We are three small villages just outside Great Yarmouth, i.e. Fritton, St Olaves and Haddiscoe. We are threatened with the prospects of our lives, that of our children and our grandchildren, being blighted by big business wanting to make vast profits without any consideration for the people of the small communities that live in the areas under sentence. The Waveney Forest in Fritton is threatened with what I can only describe as mutilation.
ECOLOGY - This forest is a haven for wildlife.
AMENITY - It is a forest where we can take our children and grandchildren for rest, relaxation, education and to de-stress or unwind and try to rid ourselves of the pressures of modern day life.

Representation ID: 74061

OBJECT Mr C Wilkes

Summary:

Amenity - I walk my huskies in Fritton woods. It'd be a shame to lose something like this. I have signed the petition and let's hope that the Cabinet at NCC listen to the people.

Representation ID: 74060

OBJECT Mr B Forbes

Summary:

I can safely say I'll be moving if Fritton Woods is taken down.

Representation ID: 74059

OBJECT Ms S Garrod

Summary:

Amenity - Sometimes I go for a walk in this forest in summer times and its such a beautiful forest. Be such a shame to see so much of it flattened. It would be pretty depressing to walk through a forest were half of it is mined and dug up.
Ecology - Why do they want to always dig things up and knock things down where all the wildlife is? They just don't think of the animals that live there, they don't even care.

Representation ID: 74058

OBJECT Ms F Key

Summary:

Amenity - I have been going to Fritton woods since I was a about 8 years old and I'm now in my 30's and take my little girl there to enjoy it.
Thank you to the Fritton Action Rescue Group for taking the time to fight to keep it the way it is.

Representation ID: 74056

OBJECT Miss J Craig

Summary:

Amenity - We went to these great woods yesterday with an organised school project and had a really good day. Some kids never get the chance to see a wood and if they tear this down they never will get the chance. Please help save this well known area.

Representation ID: 74055

OBJECT Ms C Walpole

Summary:

Amenity - We drive from Great Yarmouth often to walk dogs & my daughter loves to take photos there for her photography A2 .
My 3 children & baby love exploring these woods. Today we found 3 cars ( burnt out etc) some must be really old !!! Also found a BIG wall. Save Fritton Woods.

Representation ID: 74054

OBJECT Ms Mandy Rainbow

Summary:

Amenity - Fritton woods has been one of my favorite walks for all of my life.......I know many people who love this little wood just as much as I do! My daughter climbs her favorite tree every time we go, my dog runs free and socialises with other dogs like no where else. I am prepared for direct action. I will go live in a tree if I have to!!

It's sick how all our freedom is being stripped away. This is one of the few Woods that dog walkers are welcome. They say we should get more physical exercise as a population then they take away beautiful places we walk in. It is a scientific fact that a walk in the woods makes you feel better. I know this, I have felt it, trees are amazing..... they help us live.
What's with these people? They want to dig up the woods to get to the underneath stones to cover more green with grey concrete - it sucks! It's profit over people yet again!
SAVE FRITTON WOODS!

Representation ID: 74053

OBJECT Ms E Wigg

Summary:

Amenity - I often visit Fritton woods and I have lovely memories of going up there with my nan and all the dogs - and also is a great place to take the horses Can't believe what they are trying to do - it's a disgrace.

Representation ID: 74052

OBJECT Ms K Smith

Summary:

Amenity - Save fritton woods - I used to go there as a child and now take my children there. We went yesterday and the children had a great time making dens in the woods and exploring, there is so much freedom for them to run around and have fun, they can't wait to go again.

Representation ID: 74051

OBJECT Mr A Wigg

Summary:

Amenity - I really can't believe it. I've only just read about this in the Lowestoft journal. My wife & I are livid. We quite often come over to the beautiful woods of fritton to walk our dogs & can't believe that these big cheese's want to rip up & ruin such a lovely place & kill off such a huge amount of wildlife.

Representation ID: 74050

OBJECT Mr P Peterson

Summary:

Amenity - These woods have been enjoyed for many years as a popular walking spot for everyone. I really can't believe that anyone would want to destroy this beautiful wood. This needs to be stopped for the sake of our children, grand children, the wildlife and the planet.

Representation ID: 74049

OBJECT Ms S C Baker

Summary:

Amenity - We have a lovely, peaceful wood for everybody to enjoy, why do we have to destroy it? Why is it that a few people with money, who don't even live in the area can do such a wicked thing. It makes me so angry to think that these types of people frequently get away with destroying other peoples environments, with no concept of the impact it has for the community. We may need extra jobs in the area, but not this way. Jobs are not important when the beautiful environment like Fritton woods will be destroyed forever.

Representation ID: 74048

OBJECT Miss C Baines-Burton

Summary:

Amenity - I have been visiting Fritton Woods for many years, with many friends and for many reasons. My quality of life has been enhanced because of this. We are certainly very lucky to have these Woods as an amenity in our area, a place to visit and enjoy and unwind. A place to find tranquility and nature and witness wildlife in abundance, it certainly is a special place.

I have to agree that to many people it would be nothing short of devastating to lose it and our lives would not be the same.

Representation ID: 74047

OBJECT Mr M Collins

Summary:

Highways - As a daily user of the A143 between Bradwell and Loddon I am writing in protest to a planning proposal for an aggregates pit in the village of Fritton. This road is too narrow in places for 2 HGV lorries to pass.
At the New Road bend in Fritton, where there are temporary traffic lights, I witnessed 2 Neil Bomford, Harleston, lorries meeting each other and 1 lorry had to reverse out of the bend to allow the other to pass! This was an illegal manoeuvre but the driver just had nowhere to go and forced several vehicles to reverse in doing so. Absolutely crazy. The stretch of A143 in question is already a danger to the public.

Representation ID: 74046

OBJECT Ms C Woolner

Summary:

Amenity - Having read quite a lot of articles on saving the Waveney Forest at Fritton in Norfolk I thought I would take my family for an early evenings walk to see what everyone is talking about.
On walking into the area of woodland we felt peace, calm and tranquility. Watching the wildlife and the occasional deer gathering their supper before dark was an absolute treat for us

The whole experience was spiritually uplifting. I agree with all the objectors - please save the Waveney Forest for all to enjoy.

Representation ID: 74027

OBJECT Fritton Action Rescue Group (Mrs Jan Burton)

Summary:

Refutation of all Brett's Mitigations and Site Assessment Statement by Fritton Action Rescue Group (FAR) July 2010

1. Introduction
1.1 FAR refutes all mitigations made by Brett in their revised proposal for Min38.

1.2 To assist in the ongoing site assessment process, FAR hereby submits to Norfolk County Council (NCC) revised details in response to Brett's proposal of December 2009 (Statement by Brett December 2009).

1.3 Following the statement by Brett December 2009, FAR has analysed each if Brett's mitigations for a somewhat smaller site in terms of geological information, environmental constraints, archaeological constraints, traffic constraints and mineral requirements for Great Yarmouth Borough Council.

1.4 The somewhat smaller site within Waveney Forest now being proposed, continues to impinge on wildlife, removes large areas of forest now being used as a public amenity, will destroy most of the World War I & II archaeology, will endanger the water supply for Great Yarmouth and surrounding areas. The proposed site will also create particulate and dust levels in excess of legal limits and will render the A143 (Beccles Road) more congested and dangerous than it already is. The access road, in combination with the pit workings, will raise the noise levels for the residents of Fritton, who till now have enjoyed a quiet village location.

2. The Mineral Resource

2.1.1 The sand & gravel reserves under Waveney Forest are not in dispute; the east coast of East Anglia is almost all sand and gravel.

2.1.2 About 100 sites have been offered up as potential sand and gravel quarries. This is in excess of the requirements now and will be far in excess of the new requirements the Government is yet to bring in. Therefore any site that is a wood or a forest should automatically be dropped by NCC because of Global Warming and Amenity Value.

2.1.3 Waveney Forest is a mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees. Although most of the conifers are Corsican pine, there are also numbers of Scots pine which are very much native to this area and should be protected.

2.2 Harvesting of Coniferous Plantation

2.2.1 Well managed coniferous forests, such as are found at Thetford, are regularly replanted to ensure a continuous crop of trees. This protocol should have been enforced at Waveney Forest for all the same reasons, whilst continuing to allow access for the public as an Amenity.

2.3 Suitably located to serve markets and final destinations as part of the countywide resources.

2.3.1 Waveney Forest is stated by Brett as the nearest land-won aggregate site to Great Yarmouth. This is untrue! The nearest active site is Burgh Castle. Currently Great Yarmouth does not require sand and gravel. If they did, this could be supplied by the Burgh Castle site, which has recently been extended with negligible complaints or comments, and has reserves capable of providing 20,000 tonnes per annum for at least 13 years!

2.3.2 Brett seeks to identify: "the benefits, in terms of carbon emissions, which local supplies of mineral make in reducing the impact of transporting them over long distances by road."
This is very true, except currently Great Yarmouth does not require sand and gravel and for the above reasons, other areas should use their own quarries! As to carbon emissions: Waveney Forest Absorbs Carbon, its total destruction will add carbon to the atmosphere.

3. Landscape Concerns

3.1 Impact on Users of the Site for Quiet Enjoyment of the Countryside.

3.1.1 The Forestry Commission was set up in 1919 to promote the planting of forests and woods. After World War I, England had only 5% left of its original forest cover. East Anglia has some notable F.C. Forests, one of which is Waveney Forest, which allows for the 'quiet enjoyment of the countryside'. Digging it up obviously goes against this purpose! Waveney Forest has formal public access, a condition for accepting grants from the Forestry Commission! See the numerous off track posts with the inscription 'Walkers Welcome'.

3.1.2 Most of the land in Great Britain was forest, but due to the increasing requirements and population of mankind, much of the land was cleared of trees. These clearances were for crops and, as in this case, for pasture, grazing domestic animals create heathland, once those animals are removed woodland returns. Let us be clear heathland is alien, woodland is natural.


3.1.3 Waveney Forest is mostly 2 to 15m above sea level. Any artificial ponds and lakes would be totally alien to this environment. We have no guarantee that many years hence pits are not simply filled with rubbish. Many Fritton residents will have died of old age by the time restoration is complete.

3.1.4 National Park

3.1.5 There are a number of national parks in England. National parks have been set up with two main purposes:
1) To conserve the area for the enjoyment of future generations.
2) To promote the area for the enjoyment of the public. But in the case of the Broads area, there is an additional purpose:
3) To protect the interests of navigation.
Because of this extra purpose the Broads are said to have 'national park status', being that bit more special than an ordinary national park. Half of Waveney Forest, from the dismantled railway of the western boundary, lies within the Broads National Park (status of).
There is no way possible that these three purposes can possibly be fulfilled if this becomes a sand and gravel quarry.

3.1.6 Since Brett put forward their proposal in December 2009, where they show their intentions to sweep away this section of national park. NCC have failed to consult the Broads Authority who are responsible for this area.

Normally Broads Authority Planning would be consulted on any proposals that affect their areas of management, exactly what one would expect! So why, on this matter, were they ignored?

4. Ecology

4.1 Brett has quoted Natural England as saying a pit is unlikely to have an effect on Halvergate Marshes SSSI or Breydon Water SSI/SAC.
But Brett has been selective in their quote! Natural England said:
"Potential adverse impacts on Vertigo angustior, as this site contains the only Norfolk population for this rare mollusc which is a European protected species. This is found on the transition between floodplan and the rising ground to the east."

Examination of Brett's quarry boundaries shows that run-off from higher ground workings 'rising ground to the east' will contaminate this area; so much for rare endangered species!

4.2 Waveney Forest is host to a variety of wildlife species, just a few of these are shown here:-
Birds: Marsh Harrier, Goldcrest, Coal Tit, Long-eared Owl, Tawny Owl, Barn Owl, Nightjar, Cross-bills (in large numbers being conifer specialists). Snakes: Adder, Slow Worm, Grass Snake. Dragonflies: Norfolk Hawker (Red Data book species), Broad Bodied Chaser, Hairy Dragonfly. Moths: Orange Footman, Eriocranium sangii, Yellow horned (these are all rare woodland species). These species cannot translocate to a sand and gravel quarry, especially when it is flooded.

4.3 Great Yarmouth Borough Council recognise the importance of Waveney Forest and have issued a blanket Tree Preservation Order for this area, plus a specific one for the oaks across the access road splay.

4.4 DEFRA has produced 'A Strategy for England's Trees, woods and Forests' (0706forestry-strategy.pdf). This is quoted from their foreward:
"Woodlands enhance people's lives, health and well-being in all sorts of ways - with birdsong, seasonal colour, giving dimension to the view in low lying landscapes and providing opportunities for exercise and recreation." It could not be clearer that this is what Waveney Forest provides! Obviously it cannot as a sand and gravel quarry!

5. Archaeology

5.1 Brett have produced a map showing their intended areas of quarrying. Although this is a somewhat smaller area than they originally wanted, it nevertheless includes most of the Waveney Forest. Unfortunately, it also destroys 97% of all the military archaeology.

5.2 NCC recognizes the importance of Waveney Forest as a military site. The forest is covered by two 'Norfolk Historic Environmental Records': NHER43361 site of World War II military training site and camp, Waveney Forest; NHER4362 site of World War I to II date firing range, Waveney Forest. It beggars belief that on the one hand NCC recognises the Archaeological importance of Waveney Forest, and on the other hand, it would consider its total destruction and replace it with a sand and gravel pit.

5.3 Local amateur Archaeologists have discovered a number of artefacts spread right across Waveney Forest. In particular 18 underground chambers have been discovered, that in the opinion of Roger Thomas of English Heritage are unique and probably built by the Auxiliaries (Secret Army) - part of the Home Guard. It would be a travesty of the planning process if unique archaeology was destroyed for the sake of an unrequired sand and gravel pit!

5.4 The entrance to a Secret Army operational bunker (OB) was observed by a number of Fritton residents many years ago. At present, efforts are underway to re-discover this. Secret Army Obs are very rare, a reconstruction of one can be found at Parham, Suffolk, around which a museum has been built. It is inconceivable that if we have one here in Norfolk, that we would consider destroying it, rather than conserving it!

6. Highways

6.1 The A143, between Gillingham and Gorleston saw 24 road traffic collisions between 20 July 2009 and 20 July 2010, according to the Ambulance Trust. An extra 30 to 300 sand and gravel lorries can only increase this accident rate. Minor accidents often go unreported. Nevertheless the most recent accident occurred on the double bend at the Jolly Anglers private house in Fritton, and it is here that lorries swing out over the white line to make the bend. Two large lorries coming from opposite directions trying to negotiate these bends does not bear thinking about!

6.2 The proposed pit access road entrance joins the A143 at a point where, though a 40mph limit, is notorious for both speeding motorists and convoys created by the St Olaves traffic lights. There are a number of houses in this area and residents attempting to cross the road have great difficulty now. In future these lorry movements will make matters considerably worse.

6.3 Brett's 'Air Quality Assessment' refers to receptors within 100m of the access road. Let's be clear: human beings live in houses 72m, 57m and 93m from the proposed access road with no tree screen.

7. External Consultee Comments

7.1 Environment Agency

7.1.1 FAR have had an Hydrogeological survey carried out by an ex-resident of Fritton (and assistant), who knows the area well:
Brian Aylett Dip E.E.C.Eng.FEI.MSc(Eng) and Jamie F. Wicks B.Sc. The conclusions are at variance to those of SLR (hired by Brett) and indicate a break down of the local water supply if the aquifer cap is pierced by quarry workings in Waveney Forest.

7.1.2 FAR agrees with the Environment Agency objections for those reasons stated in 7.1.1.

7.2 Natural England

7.2.1 Natural England have quite rightly, raised concerns about the impact of the sand and gravel diggings upon Vertigo angustior. These quarrying operations will be close to and uphill from the habitat of this European protected species of snail. It is therefore obvious that run-off from quarrying operations will pollute the habitat - end of snail!
It is not possible that Vertigo angustior will be unaffected by nearby diggings. The negative effect on the food-chain of this snail can only be guess at!

7.3 Broad Authority

7.3.1 Half of this proposed site is a special national park under the jurisdiction of the Broads Authority, yet they have not been consulted and have been ignored. It is inconceivable that a national park should be dug up for sand and gravel, which is no longer required.

7.3.2 As this site rises up from the river into the coniferous trees of Waveney Forest, where sand and gravel workings are proposed, it is obvious that the Broads Authority are right in saying: "The proposals would have a significant impact on the fabric of the landscape and that of visual amenity".

7.4 English Heritage

7.4.1 English Heritage have quite rightly expressed concern that a sand and gravel quarry in Waveney Forest, would have a detrimental impact upon the setting of a number of Listed buildings. Again, as the land rises into Waveney Forest any quarrying activity would be all too evident with or without the screen of low silver birch.

7.4.2 Roger Thomas of English Heritage has raised the concerns that any quarrying activities in Waveney Forest will destroy the Archaeology so far discovered and yet to be discovered. Yet this significant objection is absent from Brett's new proposal!

7.5 Rambling

7.5.1 Public Rights of Way within Waveney Forest would not be closed during quarrying activities, but very few people are going to choose to experience the noise and dust, resulting from these activities. Especially Site B, which is hard up against the most popular right of way.

Therefore these public rights of way may just as well have been closed!

7.6 Public/Parish Council Comments

7.6.1 Concerns over noise are very real. Fritton is a quiet village community, lorry movements, working machinery and concrete crushing will be wholly intrusive on this quiet background. It is clear the noise monitoring process has not been made by an independent body. In fact SLR states "the site.... Is surrounded by open countryside in all directions." This is untrue, did they not notice the village of Fritton.

7.6.2 Brett have paid SLR to write the Air Quality Assessment report, which unsurprisingly shows that everything will be OK! And no one will suffer from dust. This report makes unnecessary use of unfamiliar works to illustrate a relatively simple assessment. No experimentation or tests were performed, and dust figures have simply been taken from the infamous Newcastle report. This report looked at open cast coal mining, which is irrelevant, as this is sand and gravel extraction. The Newcastle report gives simple figures of 2 micrograms/m3 average dust concentration for coals pits, with 5 micrograms/m3 worst case. Clearly this is nonsense: the further away from any quarry, the lower the dust concentration, not only is this obvious, but negates any findings based on the Newcastle report. Therefore this SLR report is erroneous!

Nevertheless proper scientific investigations have taken place, and one from the Californian University is attached, where dust from sand and gravel workings was measured. The results have been used to show the likely dust concentration versus distance for sand and gravel quarry activities in Waveney Forest. The Californian study relied on their own measurements, not that of a third party.

No doubt the subject quarry had adopted all the mitigating measures to reduce dust output!

7.7 Additional Matters in MIN38 Site Assessment Conclusions.

7.7.1 FAR agrees that Burgh Castle is the closest site to Great Yarmouth and with future reduced requirements for sand and gravel, plus zero requirements for Great Yarmouth, then Waveney Forest is not required as a sand and gravel resource. We agree with the following conclusions:
* The A143 is a dangerous and congested road, such that a dedicated junction at the site entrance would make the situation considerably worse, especially when lorries queue up on the A143 waiting for the site to open.
* The abundant conifers in Waveney Forest are far from fully grown.
* Site restoration plans would produce an alien landscape.
* The amenity of Waveney Forest would become a hostile environment, where no one would be able to escape the stresses of modern life - such as they now enjoy!
* 97% of the valuable and rare archaeological remains would be lost forever.

7.7.2 The negative statements within this part of the MIN38 site are shown as follows:
* Half of Waveney Forest is within the Broads Authority special national park, and destruction by chopping down trees and digging up the land will produce a scar on the landscape and minimise public access. The statement that there is a 'policy presumption against mineral working there' (in the Broads National Park) is laudable and obviously correct.
* We also agree with the statement, 'there will be an impact on various European protected species'. The habitat of the rare snail Vertigo augustior will be polluted by the run-off from higher ground. Also no habitat exists in glorious isolation, if the adjoining land is dug up, it cannot fail to impinge upon this special habitat (dirt, dust, run-off, pollution).
* The loss of "woodland habitat" would be a tragedy.
* At present public access is welcomed throughout Waveney forest as shown by the numerous marker posts bearing the legend 'Walkers Welcome'. This access would obviously be severely curtailed, by digging up the ground and cutting down trees. Those public rights of way remaining open will allow people to experience fences, diggers, sand pits, dust, exhaust fumes and noise. There is unlikely to be many takers!
* The access road onto the A143 will produce nuisance noise in a quiet country area. At present the cutting that contains the A143 keeps traffic noise to a minimum. When this is cut away to produce a splay, traffic noise will increase, on top of that already produced by quarry vehicles. Adjoining properties will suffer the brunt of this.
* Brett is clearly confused by the present of World War I and II archaeology within Waveney Forest. If they were to contact the Archaeology Department of NCC, they would discover Waveney Forest is subject to two 'Norfolk Historic Environment Records' covering all of Waveney Forest: NHER43361 and NHER43362. On top of this FAR have discovered 18 underground chambers of national importance which Roger Thomas of English Heritage believes to be of Secret Army origin, and are unique. Also the highest density of archaeological remains are situated where the access road would join Waveney Forest and Brett's Plant Site. Clearly the destruction of this archaeology would be criminal.

Also included with this representation were the following appendices:

Section 2.1.2 DEFRA on the importance of Forests.

Section 2.3.1&2.3.2 No requirement for Sand and Gravel by GYBC.

Section 2.3.2 Carbon reduction by afforestation.

Section 3.2.2 Broads Authority out of the loop.

Section 4.1 Downhill run-off from workings, into snail habitat.

Section 4.2 Waveney Forest Wildlife species: birds, animals, insects and Wildlife law.

Section 4.3 Tree Preservation Order.

Section 5.1 Locations of military finds.

Section 5.3 Description and commentaries on underground chambers.

Section 5.4 Secret Army Operational Banker, illustration.

Section 6.1 Verification of Road Accidents on A143 between Gillingham and Gorleston and photos of dangerous traffic in Fritton.

Section 7.1.1 Hydrogeological investigation into the effects of quarrying activities in Waveney Forest.

Section 7.3.2 A cross-section of Waveney Forest showing the view resulting from quarrying activities.

Section 7.6.2 Investigation into dust concentrations in Fritton resulting from sand and gravel quarrying in Waveney Forest.

FAR and Parish Council objections.








Representation ID: 74026

OBJECT Fritton Action Rescue Group (Mrs Jan Burton) and 1839 others

Summary:

I live near or use the A143 and in my opinion it is unsuitable to carry heavy aggregate lorries from Fritton. I object to the new MIN 38 mineral pit proposal for all the reasons previously submitted - including the massive 20,000 petition. This site was selected because of its proximity to Great Yarmouth and if the A143 can't take the traffic it should be rejected again.

The petition is from 1840 people.

Representation ID: 74025

OBJECT Belinda Skinner

Summary:

As I understand it, there is a very large list of proposed sites which have been submitted for your attention and consideration and I am baffled as to why MIN 38 is even still on that list.

Need: Now you could use the excuse that it is the closest proposed site to Gt.Yarmouth which is apparently a "growth area" but as Gt.Yarmouth have access to sufficient aggregates from an existing site for the next 13 years this reason is not valid.

Highways: You could say that the A143 is capable of handling more heavy traffic between Haddiscoe and Gt.Yarmouth as you have been advised by Highways, but those 2,000 residents who live alongside this particular stretch of Road disagree, and I believe have all signed to this effect. Why would you NOT believe these people?

Health: You could also agree with the opinion of Brett Aggregates' health experts, that the health of locals will not be affected should MIN 38 go ahead. But why would you wish to be the ones to take that risk?

The Waveney Forest - Fritton Woods - is not just close to Fritton, it IS Fritton and to imagine its' destruction is a travesty, and for such an unnecessary cause.

Do the right thing and keep the 20 odd thousand petitioners happy - make their day.

Representation ID: 74024

OBJECT Miss L Gardiner

Summary:

Amenity: I'm 25 & have been going to Fritton Woods since I was a child & have been most recently last Sunday with my boyfriend.
I hope the woods can be saved so I can take my children there when we start our family.

Representation ID: 74023

OBJECT Ms D Ali

Summary:

Amenity: Still visit Fritton Woods when I can, taking the grandchildren now. We should not lose this amenity.

Representation ID: 74022

OBJECT Mrs S Peters

Summary:

Re: Loss of Amenity.
I have been going to Fritton woods for over twenty years, my dad used to take me there as a child and as i grew older i took myself there, my friends and now my children there! Please save our Woods.

Representation ID: 74021

OBJECT Ms N Carroll

Summary:

I can remember going to Fritton Woods with my grandparents in the 1970's and I have been going there ever since. I would like to be able to carry on going as it is a peaceful place to walk and think!

Representation ID: 74020

OBJECT Mr J D Porter

Summary:

Highways: I would like to question NCC Planners as to why you think the existing road/ rail network within the Yarmouth/Fritton area is suitable for the extra traffic which would be produced by the MIN 38 proposal.

Ecology: They declined the A47 widening because of harm to dragonflies in 2002 but are now proposing to flatten woodland full of them.

Consultation: 10,000 residents signed the Green Party's petition in October add that to this one, means the people have spoken. What is the point of consultation if you are going to allow it anyway -regardless of public opinion & legislation protecting the trees & wildlife.

Representation ID: 74019

OBJECT Ms M Stacey

Summary:

Amenity: I am writing regarding Fritton Woods and the possibility of us getting Village Green Status for the area. I can recall first going to the woods in approx. 1974/5 , a school excursion on birdwatching. Back in those days it was a deep and gloomy place, not at all what we have there these days. I would be happy for the Fritton Action Group to add me to any list that might help to preserve this beautiful woodland (which we use frequently to walk our dogs).

Representation ID: 74018

OBJECT Mr J Parr

Summary:

Amenity: I'm writing to let you know that I was born in 1970 and was taken for walks in Fritton woods ever since I can remember and have taken my son for walks in this lovely space since he was born - he is now 10. Would love my son to be able to walk with his children in this beautiful space.

Representation ID: 74017

OBJECT Ms J Bray

Summary:

Amenity: I am 42 years old and have been going to Fritton woods since my family moved to Norfolk in 1980. I think it is a disgrace that people are even considering destroying it, my father passed away 2 years ago but it was his favourite place to go and now my children and I go there even more frequently in remembrance of him.

Representation ID: 74016

OBJECT Mr & Mrs J & K Spencer

Summary:

Amenity: We have enjoyed visiting Fritton Woods to exercise our dogs for over 20 years now.

Although our home in Chedgrave would not be blighted by the proposed scheme we are still fully behind the local efforts to save these woods.

We feel very strongly that the woods should be retained, protected and improved for future generations to enjoy.

Representation ID: 74015

OBJECT Mr W Jenner

Summary:

Amenity: I have lived in the Fritton area all my life. I am now 27 years old and have utilised the facility that is known as Fritton Woods since before I could walk.

My childhood and young adult life has been centred around Fritton Woods both for personal pleasure with family and friends and also with Youth Groups in a professional capacity.

I will take my children there because I am making a stand along with those in my community to save it.

Representation ID: 74014

OBJECT Ms S Webb

Summary:

Amenity: I grew up in Belton, so the woods were very much part of my childhood. Nature walks with the Guides and cycle riding. These woods must be saved!

Representation ID: 74013

OBJECT Mrs P Rose

Summary:

Amenity: I have been going to the woods since I was a child. I have many happy memories of Sunday walks with my parents and sister, learning so much about nature. I have taken my children and now my grand children to the woods and we still enjoy our walks .

Representation ID: 74012

OBJECT Mrs H Beales

Summary:

Amenity: I am a mother and grandmother who when my children were small took them on picnics and walks through Fritton woods and now we take our grandchildren too even on a winter`s day they liked seeing the frost and snow. So why take such a wonderful beautiful place away from our area, especially when there isn`t much else to see in the area apart from those you have to pay so much for. I am 53yrs old this year and my parent`s usd to take my brothers and I to the woods.

Representation ID: 74011

OBJECT Ms E Roache

Summary:

Amenity: I have been going to Fritton Woods since I was a little girl with family and friends and I am now 30. I feel we need to do what ever we can to save it, it's like a local park for so many people, almost like the biggest village green in the county, reaching so far. It would be a huge loss to the area and so many people.

Representation ID: 74010

OBJECT Mr J Keeling

Summary:

Amenity: I have been a frequent visitor to Fritton woods for well over 20 years now. My children have all enjoyed the freedom of our last free open space for miles around. It would be abysmal if we were to lose this last bastion of countryside for the sake of a huge sandpit.

Representation ID: 74009

OBJECT Ms J Philpott

Summary:

Amenity: I have been going to fritton woods for about 30yrs now, either with my horse my dogs or my family. I would really hate to see it dug up, where else to people have to go for a nice walk, or to see the abundance of wildlife.

Representation ID: 74008

OBJECT Ms L Chandler

Summary:

I have great memories of Fritton Woods from the 70's & 80's and as a child we always went there on a Sunday afternoon with our dogs .

At Christmas we would collect pine cones & spray them, we would swing on the rope at the bottom by the river too!

We now take our children there & do the same stuff. My son has taken some fab photos there & it would be such a shame if it wasn't there for future generations of my family & everyone elses' to experience and enjoy.

Representation ID: 74007

OBJECT Ms Carole Barnard

Summary:

Amenity: I have been going to Fritton Woods, since I passed my driving test when I was 19 years old! Then later on I would take my sons there for a picnic and a day out. I have retired now and my boys have grown up but still go to the woods for a peaceful walk in lovely surroundings. That takes it back a lot more than 20 years I can tell you! Over 40 years to be more precise. Save Fritton Woods please.

Representation ID: 74006

OBJECT Ms C Warner

Summary:

Amenity: Fritton Woods is great. I went there numerous times when I was a child and also take all my children.

Representation ID: 74005

OBJECT Ms M Hudson

Summary:

Landscape: To destroy something so beautiful as Fritton Woods is disgusting!!!
Amenity: What is going to be left for future generations if we destroy all the wonderful and special places we have around us?
Ecology: Nature is special, save it for our kids and their kids. Hands off Fritton Woods.

Representation ID: 74004

OBJECT Ms T Hinton

Summary:

LOCAL AMENITY: My family and I have been using Fritton Woods for more than 20years. It has brought a great deal of pleasure to us all. We have had picnics there, long walks with dogs and I regularly ride my horse through the Forest.

Fritton Woods is the only place like it in the area and must be kept - people need somewhere like this.

The government is always encouraging people to be more healthy and take exercise and if Fritton Woods is taken away from us it will mean a huge number of people will have no where to do so.

Representation ID: 74003

OBJECT Mr R. J. Calver

Summary:

I am writing to express my objections to the proposed pit in Fritton woods.

As well as being a local resident I am also an HGV driver with 30 years experience, more than half of that being on tippers (rigid and artics) delivering aggregates to sites throughout the country including the M25, M11, M2 and Orwell bridge. I have a good knowledge of how the pits are operated using sub-contractors and owner-drivers needing to make their money during the good weather, consequently they push ALL boundaries irrelevant as to what outsiders may think!

I have NO doubts as to the dangers which will be added to the bends between St Olaves and Haddiscoe which have already got a bad reputation and several large vehicles have already left the road on that stretch.

In Fritton we have a "pinch point" by the village hall where I myself have had some near misses with large vehicles NEEDING to take a wide swing to clear the buildings, whilst eastbound vehicles cut the bend with the rear of their vehicles, mounting the kerb, this is another accident waiting to happen.

Taking all this into consideration, I cannot see where there is any real safe way to access and use the A143 from the proposed pit site. Only as recently as 01 July and 04 July we have had the A143 closed for several hours to deal with accidents causing total chaos!

So WHY is this proposal still being considered, adding up to 120 HGV movements per day?

Representation ID: 73988

OBJECT Dr D Van Steenis

Summary:

I am surprised that Fritton is still under consideration as mineral site and I would be obliged if you draw the content of this letter to the Members of the Norfolk County Council Cabinet.

For 15 year5s now after retirement, I have been measuring and studying the effects of PM2.5s particulates all over the world. I utterly refute the HPA report which offers no supporting science or figures in respect of Fritton.

In Brighton, people died near a development and the locals sought an independent measurements from the Council over a period which I have sent to you. Those figures were from four medium bulldozers only, are considerably in excess of those projected for Fritton where there is likely to be more diesel operated machinery. These figures backed up my previous measurements taken at five Derbyshire Schools over a period of three years.

PM10s do not get into the depths of the lungs whilst PM2.5s cause all manner of illness and death. The high tension wires could accentuate these and the woods turbulence will spread the effects. These effects will spread well beyond Fritton and St Olaves and dependant upon the wind reaching Belton and Reedham.

Bretts have been misinformed in using PM10s in their submission. I have been urging the UK to legislate for PM2.5s as the USA, Canada and Japan and have already done. In five year's time we will be expected to confirm to European standards and my work will be vindicated. In the meantime, local authorise have no alternative but to protect the health of the population.

Related articles included:

1. "Corona Ions from Overhead Transmission voltage powerlines: Effect on Direct Current electric Field and Ambient Particle Concentration levels", and:

2. "Characterization of the Atmospheric Electrical Environment near a Corona Ion-Emitting Source".

Representation ID: 73987

OBJECT Mr Keith Nunn

Summary:

My Parish has just presented a further interim defence of the Waveney Forest. We believe that the case for saving the forest is already overwhelming and we have plans to escalate it further if necessary.

The present owners have neglected the upkeep and the car park is nothing short of disgraceful they have threatened previously to restrict access possibly for obvious planning reasons. They have no effective fire prevention measures and last week our action group had to call the fire brigade after three fires in three days. Now they have applied for a licence to cut down 20 acres without replanting.

We would like to be free to address these problems but every individual locally is so busy opposing this application and it is likely to be until well into next year before the present planning program gives us a decision.

In the interest of empowering local opinion and saving money the Queen's speech yesterday gave our 24,000 petitioners encouragement and opportunities in the long term but will the forest still be here?

In the present cost cutting climate, may we respectively urge you to considering saving your Council much time and money and order an urgent early consideration and elimination of the more obvious planning rejections.

Adam says MIN 38 is on a knife edge and therefore we might like to canvas the Cabinet members. This seems to indicate to us that possibly the members might not be acquainted with all our claims, but possibly only such ones that your office thinks are in addition to the previous arguments. We have spent the last four weeks arguing about dust and water claims and ended up in dispute on both.

Dust and particulates, the differences twixt the HPA and our expert seem to boil down to definitions of measurements and HPAs lack of knowledge of the project due to omissions of briefing. Dr Van Steenis we know has actual measurements and Europe have already announced they are following his lead with new max figures of PM2.5s coming in 2015 which Bretts can't hope to achieve. Bretts actual submission is faulty in this respect talking only about PM10s. It would be a brave Authority to risk the health of so many people.

Water: Your hydro geologists report agrees with ours that the geology is in a delicate state of balance but then seems to conclude the things might be ok if they are careful. This seems a risky policy particularly for nearby wells.

We are told that 24,000 petitioners can not influence things, this is surely undemocratic. Neither can the fact that we are in the process of claiming all the area as a Village Green. The new Government's Green Manifesto gives us hope and the possibility of a petition on matters of intense local interest.


Accordingly, can we request that you include in the briefing notes to the Cabinet the Parish Interim Notes (enclosed) which mention all our arguments, and would you kindly mention the extra curricular projects we have in mind so that members can see that they should not count on additional mineral figurers coming from Fritton even if it was voted as acceptable.

I had hoped not to trouble you with canvassing for support to save our lovely woods at Fritton. Last year you agreed with us that there should be no question of losing this wonderful amenity for Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. The developers then reduced the area to 200 acres and planned to develop within 175 metres of the village.

Having absolutely no help and no funding; along, our tiny village has produced numerous arguments to save the woods and the valuable archaeology. We delivered our petitions which now total 24,000 plus we obtained the services of an internal campaigner in dust and particulates who sympathises with our cause. He argues that the mineral pit particulates accentuated by turbulence in the trees would affect a wide area and certainly give concern to the 12 people in the adjacent road with asthma and bronchial troubles, not to mention larger settlements nearby.

We were confident of success until last week when the planners revealed that in spit of all our arguments (some three pages of them) the decision is on a knife edge. Our expert is in dispute with the Health Agency because there are no small dust regulations in force in the UK; but in five year's time Europe will enforce his suggestions on the UK, and the planners cannot take into account petitions, and the additional fact that we are in the process of claiming the woods as a Village Green as local people have used it for over 20 years. The new Government's Manifesto gives us hope of support for green areas and if necessary a referendum on local issues that 5% of the population support. If all else fails Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. These are factors that perhaps the Cabinet should be aware of but the planners will not be able to mention.

We are amazed that in a democracy, the will of so many people to save such a well used amenity is ignored. We depend upon you to stand firm with your previous beliefs and prevent us being overrun by a wealthy company to provide material that the Great Yarmouth deputy leader tells us is not required as they have off shore contracts in place...

Keith Nunn Parish Chairman

Interim submission by Fritton and St Olaves Parish Council

These are the main tenants' objections that we cited last year and still apply:

* Loss of the only woodland amenity for Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft.

* Biodiversity loss throughout the forest.

* Unique Archaeology loss of the newly discovered resistance hides.

* Water: Effect of development on Fritton Lake municipal water supply.

* Regular flooding of a large area of site.

* Desecration of the Broads Authority National Park.

* Effect of European protected species.

* Roads: No access available and A143 already overloaded.

* Noise and dust producing property blight

and

* Loss of forest and carbon footprint unbalance.

* Unfair consultancy process whereby only 30 persons out of 840,000 understood enough of the complicated Core Policy document to respond let along object.

* 20,000 signed our petition, not bad for 200 houses.

* There was no technical or financial aid for a tiny village to compete with the might of a determined national mineral company.

These are the areas we are expecting to raise in addition to all of the above in respect of the new proposal.

The close proximity of the residential area with the inconvenience of:

* The dreadful dust effects on property and health 175 metres from New Road is nothing short of criminal. The tree screen there is bare, no leaves at all (see photos).

* Ionisation of dust particles buy the high tension cables that cross the entire area these by pass defences and stick in your lungs and would affect horses at Redwings as well.

* Access rout is upwind and adjoining the busy children's New Road playground.

* In five years it will be mandatory to adhere to the European limits for dust PM2.5s this will effectively close the mineral activities here. Bretts have no chance of having 22 years of extraction.

* Noise: 100 metres is insufficient to be a noise barrier. No mention of the noisy grading activities at all.

* Security lights for the compound will ruin our night sky in the area.

* Threat of diggers breaking through the artesian well cap with effects on local wells and Fritton Lake.

* The tree screens will not work due to turbulence and eddies over the forest. (See K. Nunn paper).

* Fire: The forest has always been a fire hazard; sparks from vehicles or machinery would be a danger in a tinder dry period. Four fires in four days last week. Average over 30 per year.

* The Broads Authority must protect their National Park a mineral pit plus draglines and commercial machinery would affect tourism for the Broads and Fritton Lake Estate and Caldecott Hall both trying to promote their new holiday lodges.

* The number of HGVs on the A143 would increase by 75%.

* The depot and access is adjacent residential properties and near the busy New Road children's playground.

* The access road junction would destroy a lovely overhead tree canopy and due to the slope sand would collect and be a danger to motorcycles.

* The congestion and dangers on the A143 where not all accidents are recorded. 2,000 written submissions disagreeing with Highway's opinion from people living adjacent to the road.

* Great Yarmouth Council agree this will not alter until we get a third river crossing.

* Our Parish Council has resisted noise and light pollution for 30 years separating us from Great Yarmouth, this would destroy our villages as we know them.

* The area floods more readily than Brett Suggests. Section A and B are in a low land and the Staithe are has no embankment protection.

* Article 8 of the Human Rights Act should ensure that we have the right for quiet enjoyment of our home.

* Planning blight house values down. Several houses blighted now.

* We already have had poor water pressure and sewage trouble for the last five years. They admit to expecting to add to this.

* Suggested wetlands will go stagnant breed mosquitoes and encourage flooding.

* Forestry Commission is asking for more trees to sequestrate carbon not less.

* Suggested action area covers the resistance hides and would destroy them.

* A number of asthma sufferers in the villages (ten in New Road area alone).

* There are now an additional 2,534 petitioners against the scheme on the internet.

* There are an additional 2,000 plus more local people living near the road who have written in, supporting our stance on the A143 and opposing the site which will be sent in during official consultancy.

* It was stated previously that Norfolk had now sufficient minerals without the unacceptable areas. Great Yarmouth Council has its own contract for aggregates from the sea. It has sufficient sand for any envisaged building programme states the Deputy Council Leader.

* The parish Council is underway towards claiming the woods as a Village Green under the new act some 80 walkers have signed claims to have the woods for over 20 years.

* New coalition manifesto will protect the National Park and take green local opinion more into consideration. We have plenty of that.

Representation ID: 73986

OBJECT Mr W Howell

Summary:

I would like to register my continuing opposition to any development of mineral mining in the Fritton and St Olaves area where the Waveney Forest is situated.

Apart from the total unsuitability of the roads to cope with the enormous increase in traffic which would ensure, there is the loss of great community resource where for many years I and others like me have been able to walk freely, some with their dogs, others with their families, some with both, just enjoying the fresh air and freedom to ramble through the woods.

I am also Chairman of the Great Yarmouth Naturalists' Society (re-established in 1927 by the great Ted Ellis) and this Society has very frequently explored the woods with the flora and fauna to be found there. We feel it is a loss to our natural world to even think of destroying this great habitat.

Mineral workings would destroy all these activities, and in these days when more and more emphasis is placed on getting people out into the fresh air, away from television and computer, it is difficult to see how anyone could justify establishing a pit here. There must be other more suitable places.

Representation ID: 73935

OBJECT Mr B Sutton

Summary:

I write to you regarding the proposed development in Fritton Woods near Great Yarmouth. I am opposed to any development in these woods for a variety of reasons. Firstly, it is an area used by thousands of people annually to walk and explore. It is unspoilt and a haven of peace and quiet in this busy world. Secondly, it is worth noting that there are very few areas of coniferous woodland in this vicinity and so that makes it a special habitat to enjoy.

Thirdly, the road infrastructure could not easily cope with the number of heavy lorries that would be using roads designated for horse and cart. The implications, for residents being faced with such a stream of noisy, dust billowing vehicles, are serious.

Overall it would be better to find an alternative site to Fritton Woods, Great Yarmouth.

Representation ID: 73529

OBJECT Mrs Virginia Fox

Summary:

TRANSPORT:
My primary concern is the amount of vehicles linked to the quarry that will be passing through the residential area, including my property on the A143 in Bradwell.
The number of lorries to be involved with the quarry, as I understand will be in the region of around 120 per day. This amount of lorries is clearly going to cause congestion in this residential area [...].

HEALTH & SAFETY:
In addition to this I am concerned about the potential dangers that could be imposed on the children using this road to access the three schools that are in the very close proximity to the area.
This amount of lorries is clearly going to [...] act as a serious health hazard to the residents and the children using the road. I would like to know if any department has assessed the amount of vehicles and traffic flow when children will be going to school in the mornings and again in the afternoon when going home?
I understand that there has been a meeting at the St Olaves Village Hall where a world-renowned expert regarding chronic illness as a result of pollution from toxic fuel and dust particles was present. With this in mind, I have a further concern regarding the potential health hazards to the people in the area that could be caused by the pollution linked to this project.
Alongside these concerns I would like to pose the question of safeguarding the residents' health and safety in the area. Who would be held responsible for any individual's health due to pollution caused by the quarry?

LEISURE:
As the area proposed for the quarry is not industrial and as well as having houses and schools the area is also a popular walking and cycling spot and is often used for horse riding. Further more, there is Fritton Lake and Caldicot hall as well as Somerleyton Hall; all three are popular leisure and family destinations.

ALTERNATIVE SITES:
The decisions made by the planning departments in this country clearly do not seem to take individuals into consideration when big business is involved. I feel strongly about this point, as there must be many other suitable sites that would be more suitable for this project without disrupting or endangering peoples' health and day-to-day lives.

PROXIMITY:
Now that I have brought these issues to your attention I hope that you can see the potential risks of beginning the construction of the quarry in such a close proximate to a large residential area.
Whilst I am aware of the fine balance between communities and commerce I believe that the evidence to stop this pit is overwhelming.

Representation ID: 73528

OBJECT Mr Grant Hardy

Summary:

PROXIMITY:
I am writing to you regarding the proposed Gravel Extraction Plan at Fritton woods. I live at Priory Farm St Olaves, the border of our farm is just a few metres away from the revised proposed extraction area.
I have many concerns and I would like to comment on the overall insanity of the proposal. I find it difficult to understand how the matter has come this far.
[I]t will upset each and every homeowner and resident in St Olaves, Fritton and Belton.

REQUIREMENTS:
Cutting down acres of mature trees and then digging up minerals that we have an excess of locally and that are surplus to requirements; especially considering that the local council have just signed a contract to purchase such aggregates from sea bed extraction and they tell me they have no need for sand.
Over all, I very much hope that the council listens to the people that it boasts it's here to serve and not a few individuals that live many miles away, that would tear up our landscape and the lives of the local people in the pursuit of personal gain, for a product that we do not need locally nor is in short supply.

LOCATION:
The development is in a rural area that is considered a national park by many and is just metres away from the Norfolk Broads, one of our region's biggest assets.

ECOLOGY:
The development will adversely affect the outlook from the river, as well as polluting the river Waveney and killing the wildlife and its inhabitancy.

WATER SUPPLY/POLLUTION:
The water table local to the site is permeable so the whole of the surrounding area will be affected by the pollution caused by the machinery extracting the aggregates.
The small tributary running over our farm will be polluted, by way of the water table and the polluted water will then be pumped directly into the River Waveney by a large and dedicated pump run by the Somerleyton estate.
There are 4 homes at the foot of the farm that rely on an Artesian aquifer for all their water needs including drinking water. Their water supply will be contaminated.

HIGHWAYS:
There will be a massive increase in slow moving heavy goods vehicles on an already slow road into Great Yarmouth.

AMENITY:
There will be substantial noise pollution for the next 20 years and on top of this there will be Air pollution from the heavy machinery used to extract the sand and gravel.

HEALTH & SAFETY:
The pollution from the machinery has been proven to cause harm to both cattle and humans alike. It has been proven to cause many health problems and in Europe and many other countries globally has already been banned, this point is escalated given that the site is littered with high tension power lines, which have been proven by the Bristol University to ionize the dust which makes it more likely to stick to the walls of the lungs.
This in itself opens up the potential of legal action against the council from any individuals whose health might be affected over the next 20 years; especially now that the council has been made aware of the health risks in advance of granting permission.
The animals on our farm will be affected by the pollution and noise from the Pit. The pollution caused will enter the food chain as the animals are sold for slaughter.

Representation ID: 73527

OBJECT Ms J Rose

Summary:

I am writing on behalf of myself and the residents of St Olaves to say that we object to this proposed development of the area for the extraction of minerals and aggregates.

AMENITY
There are many visitors to The Priory ruins of the old priory and in this low-lying area the dust will travel many miles and combine with the marsh miasma to make the air awful.

TOURISM
Also the forest gives an opportunity for people from the area, especially from Yarmouth, to enjoy some countryside and wildlife.
We all though it was given in perpetuity as the noticeboards throughout my lifetime have said.

Representation ID: 73522

OBJECT Ms S Peters

Summary:

LANDSCAPE:
Fritton woods has been a truly magical part of my upbringing and that of my twin three year old sons to date. Erratically chopping down this area of natural beauty is nothing more than savage. I look forward to the times that I am able to ramble through the woods escaping the chaos of the surrounding towns and regularly take the 45 minute journey to visit. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of woods around my locality but there is something to be said about a wood that has as much appreciation and respect from so many people as that of Fritton woods. The rope swing hidden behind the sandbank, the animals that frequent it, the numerous picnics shared there... I could go on.
Please, from the bottom of our hearts, DO NOT DESTROY OUR WOODS. I cannot put it any other way. I could go on to argue the health benefits of the woods, the benefit of having a free local attraction and all, but again, you must know this.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS:
I cannot comprehend why such an area should be destroyed. Surely the petition and local outcry is enough to make anybody realise that this plan is atrocious.
Take a walk around there whilst reminiscing over the letters you receive, hold your own memories of your visit, for if you let this atrocity occur that is all you will have...memories!!! I trust that you will hear our concerns and hope you will support us. Our voices are gaining volume and I hope that we are heard.

Representation ID: 73520

OBJECT Mr & Mrs J Blyth

Summary:

LANDSCAPE:
We are against the pit being in Fritton and are appalled at the effects this would have on Fritton as a Village and a place of natural beauty. We are alarmed at the side effects this would impose on us as a family.

HEALTH & SAFETY:
Our 10 year old daughter has severe asthma and late last year was tested for allergies, the highest on the list she tested positive to was an allergy to dust. As a result of this we are trying our best to make it possible for her to live in an as near dust free home as possible.
AMENITY: Reading the news of how much dust and how far it can travel has totally devastated us, not knowing now how severe this will be for our daughter's future, she loves the outdoors and walks in the countryside.
We have taken her out of the town to the village to live and enjoy the fresh air and surroundings, without having to worry about constant pollution from heavy road traffic directly on the doorstep. We moved here to better our lives not have our lives risked for the benefit of others. Not to mention the noise pollution. I don't know of anyone that would want to set up home next to a gravel pit, with the constant beeping and engine noises, which no doubt will travel just as far as the dust. We hope that the future is bright. Fritton is not just a woodland walk for everyone, it is also a place some of us call "our home".

Representation ID: 73517

OBJECT Fritton Action Rescue Committee (Mr & Mrs Butcher)

Summary:

AMENITY:
NOISE ASSESSMENT
A major limitation of the Brett/SLR noise report is that it deals only with one aspect of the noise issue.
Although the report addresses the rightful concerns of residents living near the proposed new haulage road its inclusion serves to distract from a much more important issue, namely the lack of any quantified data on the effect on Fritton residents of noise generated within the quarry site as a whole.
The Health and Safety Executive draws attention to the noise generated in gravel extraction operations:
"A major noise source in quarrying and mineral workings is from materials dropping onto steel chutes into hoppers. One sand and gravel company was faced both with high noise levels and a high wear rate on chutes at the end of a screening plant.' [1]
Not only is extraction and processing a major source of noise but, unlike the passage of the occasional lorry, it is far more likely to be continuous throughout the working day.
Informing their conclusions in the road haulage noise report SLR draw on the finding that that the noise likely to be generated by the occasional mineral lorry, when averaged over time, would form but a minor addition to the ambient noise levels at the monitoring sites.
If they had considered the noise impact of a major noise source such as mineral extraction and processing continuing for some eleven hours a day for five days a week (not to mention Saturdays) together with the possibility of some of it being generated less than 200m from 'receptors' it is not hard to see that they would have had a very different answer in terms of predicted noise level change.
In the absence of robust unequivocal evidence that Fritton residents would not be subject to unacceptable annoyance from noise Brett's application should be rejected.
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT
In seeking to minimise air quality concerns Brett/SLR rely heavily on the Newcastle University researches. When traced to source (a task made difficult by SLR's lack of proper referencing) these researches turn out to be very ill fitted to the Fritton situation - see below.
Reliance on such inappropriate research serves only to underline the lack of credible scientific evidence to show that vulnerable nearby residents will be unharmed by long term exposure to respirable silica dust generated by quarry operations. The safety of breathing such contaminated air has already been very much called into question [5, 7, 8]. Who is to say that air contamination levels now thought safe will be so regarded throughout the 20 year life of the quarry? The history of other industry driven environmental hazards is anything but reassuring. Without robust unequivocal evidence that Fritton residents will not experience an increased health risk due to silica dust exposure Brett's application should be rejected.
The 'Newcastle' air quality research is largely irrelevant to the Fritton
proposals. The study concerns dust from open-cast coal mines rather than from aggregate extraction [2,3,4]. The study was confined to the effect on children [2,3,4] and symptoms were monitored for a few weeks only leaving any long term impact on health an open question where this study is concerned.
SLR's report underplays the importance of digging out the minerals in comparison with other factors like road haulage. Surely it is the unavoidable impact of the excavator bucket on the mineral substrate and subsequent dropping impact of the spoil that generates most fine dust (particularly when working 'dry' above the water table)?
The relevance of SLR's inclusion of Great Yarmouth's air quality data and national air quality data to the situation of residents living less than 200m downwind of the proposed site is unclear. Perhaps pure air allows more scope for contamination! In this connection the use of a wind rosefrom a coastal monitoring site with dominantly easterly exposure (Hemsby) to represent a westfacing slope overlooking open marshland significantly understates the dominance of winds blowing from the site towards Fritton dwellings. Although Forest Lodge appears as a dust 'receptor' in Table 4 of SLR's report its dust exposure receives no mention in the conclusions even though the garden boundary is only some 100 m downwind of the NE corner of area B.
MITIGATING CONTROL MEASURES
SLR's report recommends procedures and practices aimed at mitigating the nuisance and harmful effects of quarry operations. However, once work has begun, who is to say whether these will be properly carried out?
The HSE report on silica [6] demonstrates that control measures are often poorly applied or poorly maintained and even where technically feasible the industry has not always achieved the required control levels.
Seemingly the good intentions of top management often fail to impact the workface. If the industry cannot be bothered to look after its own what chance do nearby residents stand? Also the huge financial returns
stemming from such a quarry will enable the operators to pay readily any fines the regulating authorities may seek to impose.
In connection with regulating authorities it night be prudent to enquire whether either of the Brett companies featuring in the Canterbury HSE
enforcement notices [9,10] are part of the same Brett group as the quarry applicants.

REFERENCES
1
Health and Safety Executive, wwwgov.ukjnoisejcasestudiesjsoundtionsjgravelchutes.htm

2 Occupational and Environmental Medicine
March 2000; 57(3):145 -151. Living near open cast mining
sites and children's respiratory health.
T.Pless-Mulloli, D.Howel,A.King, I.Stone. J.Merefield, J.Bessell, and R.Darnell
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health,
University of Newcastle upon Tyne

3 Environmental Health Perspectives, 2001 Consultations of children living near open-cast mines. D.Howel, T.Pless - Mulloli, and R.Darnell.

4 International Epidermiological Association, 2001 Prevalence of asthma and other respiratory symptqp1s in children living near and away from opencast mining coal mining sites.

5 Annals of Oncology 200617(7):1039 -1050 Occupational silica exposure and lung cancer risk: p review of epidermiological studies 1996 - 2005.
C. Pelucchi, E.Pira, G. Piolatto, P.carta and C:LaVecchia.

6 Health and Safety Executive
Silica baseline survey - RR689 (available on its website).

7 Written submission by : Dr Caroline Dollery

8 Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol109.[supplement 4]
August 2001
Epidemiologic evidence of cardiovascular effects of particulate air pollution. Douglas W Dockery.
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass.U.SA.

9 Health and Safety Executive
HSE Notice No 300247425

10 Health and Safety Executive.
HSE Notice NQ 30003616

CLIMATE CHANGE:
Part of this forest comprising a minimum of some 46 hectares of commercial woodland is now under consideration as a mineral extraction site.
Calculations on the basis of a previous proposal involving 140 hectares (attached) showed that such an area of forest properly managed sequesters annually carbon equivalent to that emitted by some 15 million tonne miles of road haulage.
Allowing for the reduced area of the current proposal this comes down to: -
15 million X 46/140 tonne miles.
I understand it is intended to extract the quarried minerals at a rate of some 85 thousand tonnes annually.
Thus the carbon sequestered annually by the 46 hectares of forest is equivalent to that entailed in moving the annual yield of minerals a distance of:
(15 million / 85 thousand) X (46 /140) miles = ^= 60 miles
As the lorries will come back empty this comes down to some 30 miles.
In other words the carbon saved by rejecting the Waveney Forest site would offset that generated by going nearly 30 miles to get the same annual mineral yield from some other site(s).
This forest, which comprises some 140 hectares of commercial woodland
is under your consideration as a mineral extraction site.
The average timber growth increment per year for such softwood forest in Norfolk is some 12 tonnes per hectare 1, some 1700 tonnes in total. Of this total only about four tenths comprises the dry weight of timber, of which about one half i.e. two tenths, or one fifth of the original is carbon 2, namely some 350 tonnes.
Thus if the forest is replaced by mineral works, every year some 350 tonnes of extra atmospheric carbon, which would otherwise get incorporated into standing timber (or the durable wood based products normally made from it) will remain at large adding to global warming.
To put this in perspective the forest currently mops up the annual carbon emissions of about two hundred family cars or that resulting from about 15 million tonne miles of road haulage (say 20 tonne loads at 9 m.p.g. 3).
As this annual benefit will continue as long as the forest remains properly managed and in being it will not take many seasons to offset any reasonable additional haulage emissions involved in selecting alternative mineral sites.

A replacement forest eventually grown at Fritton or elsewhere would hardly meet the current need for urgent action to limit climate change. The need for it would in any case set a very bad example.

1. Forestry Commission District Office
2. Forest Research Website (CARBINE).
http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/website/forestresearch.nsf/ByUnique/INFD-633DJ4
3 Folkes Aggregates

LORRY CARBON EMMISSIONS
10mpg is the average diesel fuel consumption of a lorry.
Diesel fuel is made of carbon and hydrogen in proportions equivalent to C5H8
gallons / 0.22 = litres
Therefore 1 gallon = 4.545 litres.
litres / 1000 = cubic metre, m3
therefore 4.545 / 1000 = 0.004545m3 = 1 gallon of diesel.
Diesel fuel has a density of 835kg/m3
835 x 0.004545 = 3.795 kg per gallon of diesel fuel per 10 miles.
The atomic weight of carbon = 12, and that of hydrogen = 1.008
Therefore the total atomic weight of C5H8 (diesel fuel)
= (5x12) + (8x1.008) = 68.064
Therefore the proportion by atomic weight of carbon in diesel fuel
= 5x12 / 68.64= 0.8815
Therefore the actual weight of carbon in 3.795kg (l gallon) of diesel fuel
= 0.8815 x 3.795kg = 3.345kg
Therefore when a lorry travels 10 miles, it produces 3.345kg (0.003345T) of carbon in its exhaust.
OR 0.3345 Tonnes carbon in 1000 miles.

Representation ID: 73515

OBJECT Mr Keith Nunn

Summary:

I write this as a previous RAF A1 flying instructor, and fellow of the RAF Central Flying School. When I left the RAF I became the licence examiner for the area and can still lecture in Principles of Flight and Meteorology. I have for the past twenty eight years had a private airstrip which runs North South parallel to New Road approx 400 metres to the east. I wish to make three main points in connection with the proposed mineral development in the Waveney Forest and Bretts proposal which is flawed in so many ways.

AMENITY:
The wind rose offered from Hemsby is incorrect. It is eleven miles north/north/east of Fritton and on the coast. In this area it would be subject to the Sea Breeze effect which due to uneven convection and geostrophic force introduces a south easterly component during the day, strongest in the summer .The effect of this means that the Hemsby wind rose reflects more of a southerly component than the wind at Fritton. The wind at Fritton will usually be more westerly than that indicated at Hemsby assuming an average UK south westerly airmass.
On that average day the Waveney Forest is usually to the windward of New Road and my airstrip. Any pilot will tell you that due to the laminar flow of air being disturbed by an obstacle and trees in particular eddies are produced giving turbulence and to fly at low level downwind of a group of trees is very uncomfortable and dangerous. This effect is so marked at Fritton that I would only allow very few experienced pilots and never students to use my airstrip when the wind was in the west.
These eddies can clearly be seen in smoked wind tunnels and you would see that dust particles raised within the trees far from being filtered out would form a vortex the downward section encompassing the New Road houses.
The same applies to a westerly wind flowing past the access road with the proposed tree screen to the west and a bund to the east, eddies would form and defeat the attempted screening.
[Further details supplied, including pages 30, 40 & 50 from "CFD Modelling of Wind Flow Over Terrain" by Paul Stangroom, MEng, January 2004].

Representation ID: 73514

OBJECT Mr I McIntyre

Summary:

ASSESSMENT PROCESS:
I understand that the applicants Brett Aggregates may have paid for scientific experts to bolster their case. If so this is something that, as a retired pensioner, I certainly cannot afford to do, nor I imagine, could any of the other affected households. We therefore look to you to use your expertise, in which we have every confidence, to weed out and counter any biased or distracting evidence and reach a fair conclusion consistent with the principles of local democracy.


PROXIMITY:
Location of Forest Lodge
My bungalow, dating from the eighteen fifties, lies in a clearing deep within the forest a km or so from the nearest through road. This is among the most idyllic locations in the South of England and over the years I have received numerous unsolicited offers to buy my home on account of its peace, tranquillity and wildlife.
The dwelling is centred 120m NE of the NE corner of quarry area 'B' although the nearest corner of my garden is only about l00m from the latter.

AMENITY:
With the dominance of the SW winds and the closeness of the proposed quarry works, of all affected households, my home seems well placed to receive a lion's share of the noise and airborne particulate fall-out.
Noise: The remote location of my home means that normally no man-made noise can be heard apart from the distant sirens of emergency service vehicles attending the all too frequent accidents on the A 143.
I understand that in considering the possible noise of lorries using the proposed haulage road it is argued that such noise may be acceptable because it forms, on average, but a small percentage addition to the pre-existing noise level. Aggregate extraction, however, being more continuous and inherently noisy, has a much greater noise potential than these lorries. Furthermore, based on the argument cited above, significant quarrying noise impacting on a very quiet location like Forest Lodge would constitute a totally unacceptable noise increase of many hundreds of percent! And we all know that sound carries best down wind!
Unless there is strong and indisputable proof that the tranquillity of my home and the other affected households will not be significantly impaired by the noise of quarry operations the proposed aggregate extraction should be rejected.
Light pollution
The 'big black hole' inland from the coastal conurbation is notable for the lack of contaminating light enabling the stars of the firmament, on a clear night, to be seen in all their glory. This condition has been maintained by steadfast local resistance to the notion of street lighting. As well as having an interest in astronomy myself, visitors from further inland have brought their astronomical telescopes to our forest clearing to take advantage of the good 'seeing' conditions. It would be a great pity if this were impaired by light pollution from introduced outdoor lighting.

HEALTH & SAFETY:
Throughout adult life I have suffered shortness of breath
on exertion due to exceptionally low lung capacity (550 ml).
I have also suffered from recurrent stomach ulcers brought on by stress including a near fatal stomach haemorrhage requiring a 5 pint blood transfusion. I also drew incapacity benefit (confirmed by .Tribunal) for some 10 years prior to age 65 for a continuing skeletal condition unrelated to the current issue.
My wife has suffered from asthma throughout her adult life and within the last 2 years, during a visit to Beccles, had to seek emergency treatment for-breathing distress. She has to carry an inhaler for breathing emergencies. She has for the last 30 years suffered from rheumatoid arthritis which is treated with immunosuppressant drugs.

Some 1 7 years ago I had the opportunity to take early retirement. Even though in mid-career, I decided to take it, because of our deteriorating health. On medical grounds we were advised to return from urban Buckinghamshire to my former family home at Fritton because of the tranquillity and the purity of the air.
Because of our state of health exposure to significant noise or particulate fall-out would be particularly distressing.

Airborne particulates
I am particularly worried about particulate fall-out because of the nearness of the quarry works and the down wind location of my home.
Notwithstanding current regulatory requirements, which lag years behind current knowledge, I understand that today it is recognised that sustained exposure to very low concentrations of fine airborne silica, as might occur downwind of aggregate extraction, could affect health adversely, especially that of vulnerable persons.
Likewise I understand that sustained exposure to airborne contamination from the inefficient combustion of many, many, thousands of litres of diesel fuel annually, used to power digging machines, could have a similar adverse effect on health.
Before retirement my duties took me extensively throughout the U.K. and I recall that the great majority of large aggregate pits lie in open country not close to habitation. Where not so I have yet to hear of any studies that assure the continued long term health of residents, if any, living-near such works. I understand that the quarry applicants made spatchcock use of coalfield data in the cause of such assurance, if so, this suggests a worrying lack of assuring data for aggregate works. Indeed, for all that such a submission can tell us, such relevant studies as may exist, might point the other way.
None of us want to break ground as human guinea pigs only to prove that the regulations surrounding mineral extraction need to be revised.
If the scheme for mineral extraction is permitted I think that, not only will the quality of life of my family and the other nearby households be adversely affected to an unacceptable degree, but our health will be put at risk.
Without strong uncontroversial evidence that the lifestyle, health and welfare of residents will not be adversely affected by the proposed quarry the scheme should be rejected,;. even it: as with the Titanic a century ago, it accords with current regulations!

WATER SUPPLY/POLLUTION:
Seemingly the quarry applicants considered only those groundwater users with extract licences (only needed if you take out 20m3 a day - 20 tons???) leaving unlicenced users unconsidered. Like some other affected households I have a well to back up the domestic water supply. Because of the limited agricultural use in the catchment and the purifying effect of forest cover the well has yielded a potable domestic water supply for many years, and, indeed, was my sole source of water supply until some 20 years ago.
The current mains supply to my 'island' site is somewhat precarious being via a small bore pipe connected to my neighbour's privately installed pipework 300m away. Depending on upstream usage the supply may be reduced to a mere dribble, particularly when holiday camps are fully booked. Because of this I have maintained the well installation as a back-up complete with electric pump.

Currently the well is used for occasional garden watering by bucket, occasional drinking (to maintain our immunity to untreated water acquired in childhood) and to maintain our 30,000 litre reservoir for fighting forest fires.
Although my well has never run dry it contains only some 300mm depth of water (less when atmospheric pressure is high) it is thus very vulnerable to any activity, even downstream, which might lower the water table. Also, because the underground water flow is broadly counter to the dominant wind direction, airborne particulate fall-out on the catchment could eventually contaminate the supply.
Unless there is strong unequivocal evidence that the continuity and quality of our well water supply will not be affected adversely the scheme for aggregate extraction should be rejected.
'.

ECOLOGY:
For my own part I enjoy watching the great variety of wildlife that utilise my garden. Because hunting and shooting are forbidden in the forest many of the creatures are quite tame and approachable. I fear that many of these would disappear if their forest habitat were disrupted.

CLIMATE CHANGE:
Destruction of forest
The partial destruction of one of the Britain's newest forests, created using public funding for the benefit of our people, merely to obtain aggregate so available elsewhere, is surely a nonsense.
Any sustained loss of forest would be totally at variance with
the urgent need to increase Britain's forest cover to control carbon emissions and so limit climate change. Similarly it would fly in the face of the recommended use of forest cover to purify the aquifer rainwater catchment. For a public authority to condone forest destruction, where an alternative exists, would set a very bad example indeed.

Representation ID: 73513

OBJECT Mr S G Bowman

Summary:

I am a resident of Fritton, Gt. Yarmouth and have been for 23 years. My house has been home to two generations of my family having moved here with my parents in 1953.

HIGHWAYS:
Our residence is situated on the A143 and since returning here in 1987 I have noticed a steady increase in the traffic flow through the village. I would estimate that the volume of passing traffic has doubled in the last 20 years. This has caused the hazards involved in leaving our residence by car to have reached an unacceptable level, this is without the proposed relief road also joining the A143 with slow moving aggregate vehicles joining fast moving traffic. The time taken to join the main road is currently frustrating but with quarry vehicles joining near to us it will be virtually impossible. I am extremely concerned for the safety of myself, family and friends that use our access.

PROXIMITY:
Due to the proximity of our dwelling to the A143 it suffers from noticeable vibration caused by passing heavy goods vehicles. This will be made unbearable should the proposed 60 aggregate vehicles per day go ahead. As a consequence of this vibration we are suffering from falling pointing and deterioration of existing outbuildings and chimney stacks. Should this development proceed and further damage occurs then I would expect to be fully compensated.

CLIMATE CHANGE:
With the current taxations we are subject to in the name of the environment and carbon offsetting being advised from the councils and government I am amazed that the destruction of the woodland area in Fritton is even being considered.

Representation ID: 73507

OBJECT Fritton with St Olaves parish council (Mrs L M Clark)

Summary:

These are the main tenants of objection that we cited last year and still apply:

LEISURE:
Loss of the only woodland amenity for Gt Yarmouth and Lowestoft

ECOLOGY:
Biodiversity loss throughout the forest
Desecration of the Broads Authority National Park
Effect on European protected species

ARCHAEOLOGY:
Unique Archaeology loss of the newly discovered resistance hides
Suggested action area covers the resistance hides and would destroy them

WATER SUPPLY/POLLUTION:
Effect of the development on Fritton Lake municipal water supply
Regular flooding of large area of site
Possible effects on local wells and Fritton Lake
We already have poor water pressure and sewage troubles they expect to add to this.
Suggested wetlands will go stagnant, breed mosquitoes and encourage flooding

HIGHWAYS:
No access available and A 143 already overloaded.
The number of HGVs on the A143 would increase by 75%
The congestion and dangers on the A 143 not all accidents are recorded.
Gt Yarmouth Council agree this will not alter until we get a third river crossing

AMENITY:
Noise and dust producing property blight
Noise: 100 metres is insufficient to be a noise barrier
The tree screens will not work due to turbulence and eddies over the forest (see K. Nunn paper)
Our parish council has resisted noise and light pollution for years this would destroy our villages as we know them
Article 8 of the Human rights Act should ensure that we have the right for quiet enjoyment of our home.

CLIMATE CHANGE:
Loss of forest and carbon footprint unbalance.
Forestry Commission is asking for more trees to sequestrate carbon not less

ASSESSMENT PROCESS:
Unfair consultancy process whereby only 30 persons out of 840,000 understood enough of the complicated Core Policy document to respond let alone object.
20,000 signed our petition, not bad for 200 houses
There was no technical or financial aid for a tiny village to compete with the might of a determined national mineral Company#
There are now an additional 2000 petitioners against the scheme on Facebook
There are approx 1000 more local people who have written in supporting our stance on the A143 and opposing the site which will be sent in during official consultancy.
It was stated previously that Norfolk had now sufficient minerals without the unacceptable areas.

PROXIMITY:
The close proximity of the residential area with the inconvenience of
the dreadful dust effects on property and health and 175 metres from New Road is nothing short of criminal.

FIRE HAZARD:
The forest has always been a fire hazard sparks from vehicles or machinery would be a danger in a dry period

LANDSCAPE:
The access Road junction would destroy a lovely tree canopy

PROPERTY VALUE:
Planning blight house values down

TOURISM:
Effect of draglines and bulldozers on the National Park and
tourism

HEALTH & SAFETY:
Large numbers of asthma suffers in the villages (ten in New Road area alone)

Representation ID: 73506

OBJECT Somerleyton Estate (Mr H Crossley)

Summary:

WATER SUPPLY/POLLUTION:
I am writing to voice Somerleyton Estate's grave concern about the prospect of the proposed mineral extraction by Brett Aggregates from Waveney Forest, in the south east of the county. Obviously I write as a major business bordering this area and moreover as a local resident.
The estate has three main concerns:¬
Firstly, the hydrology of the area which in part feeds Fritton Lake; it is clear from Jackie James' (Environment Agency) letter below, there are very serious and legitimate concerns about the potentially very damaging affect this extraction will likely have on the ground water feeding Fritton Lake which is a major reservoir for Essex and Suffolk Water and an equally major premier leisure attraction, including a high class hotel, a development of 110 woodland lodges, a visitor attraction attracting over 20,000 visitors a year as well as several aquatic events such as triathlons. All of these activities would be completely ruined by any adverse effect on the water quality in Fritton Lake. We therefore insist, that a planning condition, ordering Brett Aggregates to payout tens of millions of pounds in compensation against lost future earnings for all these entities as well as wasted historic costs on planning is written into any consent should this ill thought out proposal be allowed to go ahead. I cannot overstate enough the absolute critical importance the Fritton Lake businesses are to the survival of the Somerleyton Estate.

In addition we are concerned that in order to excavate low land sites such as this, the developer nearly always have to dry the land by 'dewatering' (ie. pumping it into the river) which will clearly have an adverse effect on the aquifer for Fritton Lake. Though the developers might deny they plan to dewater the proposed site is for very low land so this is a major concern; none of us need reminding on the pressure on-water as a resource particularly in this region. The estate relies on the income from Essex and Suffolk Water's abstraction and in future for irrigation on the farm which is the second major source of income for the estate.
Jackie James Letter Extract:¬
'I can appreciate the concern of residents in the area. They are quite right in their understanding of the local hydrogeology. The public water supply (Northumbrian Water/Essex & Suffolk) is indeed taken from Fritton Lake. It is technically classed as a surface water abstraction because it is taken from the lake, but the lake is virtually a groundwater fed body so will be in hydraulic continuity with the land that they believe would be excavated, as are the surrounding marshes. Unfortunately, our 5ystem will not assign a source protection zone to the abstraction because it only recognises the abstraction as being from surface water'
'When we are consulted on this proposal we will take a hard line, requesting detailed risk assessments and environmental impact assessments for any such developments in this area.

Protection of controlled waters and potable drinking supplies are of paramount concern to us:
I might point out that the hefty planning proposal as set out by Brett Aggregates does not even mention the relevance of Fritton Lake to the local hydrology despite concerns being raised already by both Essex and Suffolk Water and the Environment Agency.

HIGHWAYS:
The access suggested, if indeed this is a serious proposal, undermines the legitimacy of
Norfolk highways as a reputable authority. It may be I have been wrongly told, but I 'heard' rumours highways had approved this proposal?
We have been fighting highways to improve the road safety at Cherry Lane Garden centre and reduce the speed limit through Fritton and St Olaves for years now to no avail, despite several serious accidents annually. This access point, across unspoilt countryside onto the brow of a very busy and partially blind hill is incredulous. The noise to local residents will be unbearable and the frequency of lorries will surely mean traffic lights are essential or there will be accidents on a weekly basis. There is no precedent anywhere in East Anglia for such a completely unsuitable access to be provided and it makes a mockery of the inconsistency to road safety along this stretch of road. I have spent a great deal of time with highways officers from both counties and I cannot believe there is a single self respecting officer who would genuinely green light such a moronic piece of highway policy.
Moreover, the A143 is already hugely busy and at times gridlocked in summer and without the third river crossing looking likely for many years additional traffic at this point is unnecessary, unwelcome and unreasonable towards residents, holidaymakers and commuters. The tourism contribution to the Norfolk/Great Yarmouth area alone is worth far more for far longer than this mineral proposal which will blight this popular area for years to come as well hugely devaluing all the properties of Fritton and St Olaves for a generation as well as our woodland lodge development, tourist attractions and hotel.

AMENITY:
Despite proposing to operate between 0700 to 1800 hrs and the obvious insinuation dust, noise, traffic, drag lines visible from the river Waveney incredibly and insultingly for tourism and residents. There is NO mention of tourism or residents at all proving that Brett Aggregates have no interest in anything other than their profit. 20,000 people have signed a petition and NO reference to local people at all.
The current enjoyment of Waveney forest by thousands of local people from Haddiscoe, St Olaves, Fritton, Herringfleet, Browston, Bradwell, Belton and Great Yarmouth for walking and horse riding will be destroyed and or severely restricted by this proposal for a generation. Bearing in mind county have already allowed Great Yarmouth to destroy much of the surrounding hinterland with rushed and ill planned developments Waveney forest is the only large wooded area with public access which is of great importance to thousands of peoples health and well being - people need spaces like this for recreation, this too seem not have been taken into account.
I am sure Brett Aggregates are well intended and all local people of course understand there is a fine balance between the needs of the national economy and the needs of the local economy and the lifestyle of local residents. I hope this letter, together with over 20,000 other signatures and objections by local residents and statutory bodies such as the EA, Defra, Essex and Suffolk water and the Broads Authority water will give Norfolk the courage to stand up to the self interested bullying of Brett Aggregates.

Representation ID: 73503

OBJECT Mr & Mrs JE & LE Crooks

Summary:

We reinforce our concerns as set out in our letter dated 24 July 2008. Any new application made with regard to Fritton Woods being used for aggregate extracton is totally unacceptable, therefore we raise our concerns and objection of what plans are in preparation for Fritton Woods.
LANDSCAPE & ECOLOGY: This beautiful forest with many diferent bird and animal wild life is what being in the countryside is all about.
HIGHWAYS: The local environment will also be affected by even more large lorries using an already very busy and dangerous road.

Representation ID: 73501

COMMENT Broads Authority (Mr John Clements)

Summary:

Thank you for consulting the Broads Authority on these proposed DPDs. The Authority has previously commented on the specific sites under consideration and is broadly content with the proposed assessments and conclusions in the documents.

On a minor point, there is some inconsistency in the various references to the Broads area (though some of these may arise from the wording used by your earlier consultees).

* References to the area as 'Broads National Park' or 'the Broads Authority' are incorrect. (It has equivalent status to, but is not, strictly speaking, a national park; and the Broads Authority is the body not the area).

* 'Broads Authority executive area' and 'designated Broads area' are correct, if perhaps a little unwieldy.

* 'The Broads', 'the Broads area', or 'the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads' are all correct and adequate.

Representation ID: 73499

SUPPORT Brett Group (Dr Lillian Harrison)

Summary:

INTRODUCTION: Brett objects to the conclusion that Fritton (Site Min 38) is not acceptable for future mineral working.

To assist in the ongoing site assessment process, Brett hereby submits to Norfolk County Council (NCC) revised details in response to the issues and comments raised in the Mineral Site Assessment Report for Site MIN 38 as well as expanding on previously submitted information and providing clarification on other matters.

Following receipt of the consultee responses on Fritton (Site Min 38), together with the Mineral Site Assessment in the Oct 2009 Minerals Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options), Brett has reviewed the geological information as well as environmental constraints and is now promoting to Norfolk County Council, a smaller Mineral Site for consideration as a 'Preferred Area' or 'Specific Site' in the Norfolk Minerals Site Allocations Development Plan Document.

The smaller site now being promoted for consideration as a 'Preferred Area' or 'Specific Site' for mineral working, excludes Waveney Forest County Wildlife Site, it also excludes the public footpaths, bridleway and the car park. It will not disturb the lower lying areas of reedbed / saltmarsh to the west of the mineral bearing land. The proposed areas for mineral working will also avoid disturbing the deciduous woodland areas and the remnant heathland areas shown on Plan FRI/01 attached.

THE MINERAL RESOURCE: A reserve proven by geological evidence

The mineral borehole logs for Fritton (Site Min 38), previously supplied to Norfolk County Council, prove the presence of an economic resource of sand and gravel.

The sand and gravel deposit at Fritton is located on an area of Pleistocene Corton Sand Member sand and gravels. These deposits are truncated by the River Waveney valley to the west but extend east and north- eastwards from the Fritton site to the coast in the east. Underlying the majority of the region at varying depths are the sandy, silty deposits of the Crag Formation. These are similar in lithology to those of the Corton Sand Member and therefore difficult to distinguish in places. The Corton Sand Member is separated from the underlying Crag Formation in some areas by the thin and discontinuous Corton Till Member.

Trial pits and borehole investigations for the site indicate that the geology is consistent with that shown by published geological mapping and that the underlying deposits are a sequence of sands, gravels and silty sands with occasional clay bands. The Corton Sand member is identified in all trial pits and boreholes across the site, whereas the Corton Till Member is limited in its extent. The underlying Crag deposits are identified in the majority of boreholes. Site specific geological information is given in the Hydrogeological Report accompanying this statement (as Appendix 1) and in a hydrogeological cross-section shown on Drawing 3 in that report.

In view of the earlier comments from various consultees, the site area has been reviewed and a smaller area is now being promoted for both the mineral working areas and for the total site area at planning application stage. Only areas currently under coniferous woodland will be worked for mineral. These areas are shown on Plan FRII01 attached. The total site area (including undisturbed woodland boundaries which will be retained for screening and for their wildlife interest, the site entrance and haul road and sufficient area for marginal soil bunds is circa 79ha, with a total area of 46.1 ha being the mineral extraction areas - shown on Plan FRII01 as areas A,B,C&D. Mineral resource information has been reviewed in the light of both this smaller proposed working area and the objectives of the restoration scheme (shown on the Restoration Concept Plan in Appendix 2) attached. The total exploitable mineral resource within areas A-D is estimated at 1.87 million tonnes, which will be worked at an average rate of 85,000 tonnes per annum.

We request that the information (enclosed) regarding the revision to the site area and likely quantity of sand and gravel reserves is noted and that these details should be used to inform future consultation documents regarding site MIN 38 (Fritton).

AVAILABLE FOR EXTRACTION WITHIN THE TIMESCALE OF THE MDD: The land being promoted to NCC for inclusion as a 'preferred area' for sand and gravel extraction in the emerging Minerals Development Framework Development Plan Documents (Site MIN 38) is owned by a local estate which is keen to work with Brett in developing the site for mineral extraction in conjunction with the harvesting of the coniferous plantation. The site would then be able to offer opportunities for creating ecological habitats that are more in keeping with the local environment including wetland/wet woodland and dry heathland on restoration. This site can be brought forward as a planning application early in the plan period to assist NCC in making provision for the landbank requirements demanded in National and Regional Minerals policy.

Mineral Planning Statement No 1 (MPS1) recognises (in Para 4.1) that individual sites, when permitted, need sufficient reserves to be economically viable, consideration of the land bank needs to be flexible enough to allow for this.

SUITABLY LOCATED TO SERVE MARKETS AND FINAL DESTINATIONS AS PART OF THE COUNTY WIDE RESOURCES: Fritton is the nearest land-won aggregate site to Great Yarmouth, which is one of the Growth areas in East Anglia. In order to provide essential construction materials for development, it is far more sustainable to rely on locally sourced materials than to need to transport minerals long distances.

MPS1 (Paragraph 15 on 'Supply') identifies the benefits, in terms of reduction in carbon emissions, which local supplies of mineral make in reducing the impact of transporting them over long distances by road.

LANDSCAPE CONCERNS
RETAINING TREE SCREEN: The earlier proposals for the site have been reviewed in the light of all of the comments received in response to earlier consultations. A new scheme is being proposed based on a smaller area being worked for mineral as well as a smaller site boundary area. All of the deciduous woodland areas will be retained in situ as a tree screen. These areas shown on Plan FRI/01 attached.

IMPACT ON USERS OF THE SITE FOR QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THE
COUNTRYSIDE: The existing landscape is largely alien in character, being a commercial coniferous plantation which generally lacks suitable habitat for biodiversity interests and has no formal public access. The public footpath which crosses the north eastern section of Waveney Forest, starting at the car park and picnic area will not be affected. Mineral working will be carried out a minimum of 100m away from this footpath and in the vicinity of the footpath the gravel deposit will be worked 'dry' so there will not be any water hazards for users of this public right of way. Similarly, the bridle way which runs in a westerly direction from the northern point of New Road to the Staith Belt will not be affected. It will be retained in situ during mineral working in the adjacent area and suitably fenced for the safety of the bridleway users when mineral working is occurring nearby.

Restoration of the coniferous woodland areas gives opportunities to create habitat more suited to the local environs and more in keeping with the historic uses of the area. Such habitat will include extensive areas of dry heathland, with wetland and wet woodland areas on the western side of the site. The restoration concept plan is attached as Figure 5 in Appendix 2.

As part of the restoration proposals, it will be possible to considerably enhance the possibilities for the public enjoyment of this land, to which there is no formal public access at present, by providing extensive formalised public access to an ecologically improved area. This will enhance the site's capacity to be an attractive recreational facility for both local residents and visitors.

NATIONALLY DESIGNATED LANDSCAPE: It is recognised that part of the site lies within a nationally designated landscape (Broads Authority) and is therefore subject to considerable landscape constraint. By combining mineral working in the areas shown on Plan FRI/01 with coniferous forest clearance, there will be an exceptional opportunity to provide a landscape and habitat types that are more in keeping with the locality as well as providing public 'access for all' to the area (in a phased manner, after restoration of each of the four phases), as well as contributing to Biodiversity Action Plan habitat targets by creating wetland/wet woodland and extensive areas of dry heathland.

PHASING / RESTORATION: Plan FRI/01 shows the proposed phasing of mineral extraction and restoration, as areas A-D which will be worked consecutively. The plant site will be located in Phase D and so mineral working in this phase will be last. As there is no need to import inert fill to enable the restoration scheme to be achieved, restoration will be carried out in a phased manner following quickly behind gravel extraction. Only indigenous soils and unsaleable quarry arisings (including silts and fine sands) will be utilised for the re-profiling and the soil forming materials needed for the proposed restoration.

ECOLOGY
PROXIMITY TO ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT AREAS: Brett acknowledges the need for an EIA and full ecological survey as part of any future planning application for the site. In particular the potential effect of gravel working on the adjoining marshland and the River Waveney will be considered.

However, as the site will mainly be worked for gravel above the water table, and where working below the water table is proposed to occur (in parts of areas A and C) the deposit will be worked wet by long reach excavator or drag line. There will not be any pumping of water and so there will not be any effect on the ground water conditions at the nearby sensitive designated sites.

Restoration to wet woodland/wetland and dry heathland is proposed and the Restoration Concept Plan shown in Appendix 2 is achievable without the need to import any inert fill.

Natural England have accepted that mineral development proposals at Fritton are 'unlikely to have an impact on Halvergate Marshes SSSI or Breydon Water SSSI/SAC' (as stated in the NCC Mineral Site Assessment for Fritton). Drawing from the results of the technical reports attached, we can agree with this statement.

HIGHWAYS: A suitable access onto the A143 will be incorporated into the site entrance details to be provided at Planning Application stage. An appropriate access can be designed to avoid any impact on the local highway network, so highway impacts will be acceptable.

Initial details regarding the proposed access location and site entrance layout are attached in Appendix 6.

EXTERNAL CONSULTEE COMMENTS
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The SLR Hydrogeological and Hydrological Assessment dated December 2009 (attached in Appendix 1) assesses the potential impacts of the proposed development upon the hydrogeological and hydrological environments and where appropriate, mitigation measures have been recommended, in accordance with 'best practice guidance'. All of the mitigation measures recommended in the SLR report in Appendix 1 will be incorporated into the scheme of working and restoration at planning application stage and implemented as part of the development when operations commence on site.

Groundwater levels will not be affected as any working of the mineral below water table will be carried out 'wet' without reducing the water table locally by pumping.
The SLR Hydrogeological report concludes that, with respect to groundwater and surface water, there are no significant residual impacts of the development after consideration of the identified mitigation measures.

Therefore, we think that the EA objection to the allocation of Fritton due to ecological impacts on the River Waveney is unfounded and we would be grateful if the EA could be re-consulted with this additional site-specific information and technical reports.

NATURAL ENGLAND: Natural England have raised concerns about the impact on the mineral extraction operations upon Vertigo angustior, as this site contains the only Norfolk population for this rare mollusc which is a European Protected Species. It is found on the transition between the flood plain and the rising ground to the east.

This concern has been addressed in three ways;
* Firstly, by reducing the proposed development area so that mineral will only be extracted from the four areas shown on Plan FRI/01 attached. As mineral extraction will only occur in existing areas of coniferous forest, the likely habitat of the snail will not be affected;
* Secondly, a full ecological survey of the site and its environs will be carried out as part of the Environmental Statement which will accompany the planning application and suitable, sufficient mitigation will be proposed and implemented if the snail is found in the vicinity of the proposed gravel working areas; &
* Thirdly, the SLR Hydrogeological and Hydrological report (attached as Appendix 1) considers the issue of the protection of the habitat for this species of snail and recommends that, in order to prevent potential impacts such as saline intrusion and associated derogation of water quality caused by sub-watertable pumping, once mineral extraction reaches the water table the sand and gravels are worked 'wet' ie without any dewatering. This measure would ensure that groundwater flow and quantities will not be affected to those sensitive receptors in the near vicinity and should preserve their current status. The proposed restoration to include ponds that will be in hydraulic continuity with the aquifer is not considered to have any significant impacts upon the groundwater flow regime and should add considerable ecological value to the site. These recommendations will be fully included in the detailed proposals for mineral working at the site.

NORFOLK WILDLIFE TRUST: NWT have requested that, if the site is taken forward as an allocation, then the forest areas should be restored as heathland and associated habitats. Floodplain areas should only be taken forward if they are restored to wetland habitat. Whilst the only areas to be worked for sand and gravel are the areas shown on Plan FRI/01 attached and consist of areas currently under coniferous plantation, on restoration a combination of dry heathland, wetland and wet woodlands will be created, as shown on the 'restoration concept plan' in Appendix 2.

BROADS AUTHORITY: The Broads Authority raised the concern that 'most of the site is remnant heathland which is a rare commodity within the BA
boundary.'

The revised (smaller) area now being promoted by Brett to NCC for mineral working will consist of only those mineral bearing areas located under coniferous forest plantations. As part of the Planning Application and EIA a full ecological survey will be carried out so that the actual boundaries of the remnant heathland can be accurately plotted and the boundaries of the mineral extraction areas will be finalised to ensure that no areas of remnant heathland are affected.

The David Jarvis Associates report attached (Appendix 2) concludes that 'in terms of landscape aspects relating to the site's proposed allocation, it is considered that, with the mineral extraction areas being limited principally to the areas of coniferous forest, with the retention of significant areas of broadleaf woodland, reedbeds and heathy rides, both the principal areas of ecological interest would be avoided, as well as allowing for enhancement and repopulation of species from these areas, through sensitive restoration. In addition, the extraction areas would remain appropriately screened.'

The Broads Authority view that 'The proposals would have a significant impact on the fabric of the landscape and that of visual amenity', is not, in our view, now correct and we would be grateful if the Broads Authority could be re-consulted on these revised proposals.

There is no proposal to remove aggregate from the site by river.

ENGLISH HERITAGE: EH raised concerns about the proposals possibly having a detrimental impact upon the setting of a number of listed buildings to the south in St Olaves, including the Grade I listed St Olaves Priory, which is also scheduled and the Grade II listed drainage pump, as well as the Grade II listed church and hall to the South East and a number of Grade II listed drainage rnills along the River Waveney to the west, part of the Broads' historic landscape.

Brett has retained Andrew Josephs (Environmental Consultant Specialist in Archaeology and EIA) to address these concerns raised by EH. His report, entitled, Potential Mineral Extraction Site MIN 38 Response on Cultural Heritage Issues' is attached as Appendix 3. His report states (Section 6) that, '.. it irnmediately became evident that the Proposed Development Area (PDA) comprises quite dense mature coniferous and broadleaved woodland and that it should be possible to leave a peripheral belt of trees undisturbed around the external boundary of the PDA, no views would be possible of the proposed working.' His report concludes, 'with appropriate mitigation, the proposed development would, in our opinion, not have a significant effect upon the setting of any listed building or the Scheduled Monument of St Olave's Priory'.

We would therefore be grateful if EH could be re-consulted on the revised site boundaries, phasing, restoration proposals and the Cultural Heritage Report attached as Appendix 3 to this statement.

HIGHWAYS AGENCY (HA): The HA have stated that Site 38 is unlikely to have a significant impact upon the A12/A143 junction. This comment is both noted and welcomed.

NORFOLK GEODIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP (NGP): NGP have requested that, if identified during mineral working, they would like the preservation of a section of a former Holocene cliff line within the restoration proposals and they would also like to be given, a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered.

Both of these requests will be accommodated in the scheme of working and restoration prepared at planning application stage.

RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION (RA): The RA has expressed concern that there could be temporary closure of footpaths as a result of mineral working. Paths such as those found at Fritton act as links in the paths network and their closure could interfere with access to sections of the countryside.

The revised proposals for mineral working will not affect any of the public footpaths or bridleways in the vicinity of the site. There will therefore be no need for any diversions. In addition, the restoration proposals will enable better 'access for all' to this part of Waveney Forest and mineral working over the identified areas will give rise to restoration of the landscape to habitats more in keeping with the landscape and the historic past of this area.

We would therefore be grateful if the RA could be re-consulted on these revised proposals.

PUBLIC/PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS: The concerns raised regarding noise and dust are addressed in the technical reports in Appendices 4 and 5. The noise report
(Appendix 4) concludes that, 'the assessment has shown that worst-case predicted noise levels from heavy goods vehicles movements associated with the proposed quarry development would have a minor, barely perceptible, impact upon the nearest residential receptors. In view of the above, mitigation measures to reduce the noise impacts of goods vehicle movements are considered unnecessary. However, the applicant is prepared to include suitable noise mitigation measures in the scheme of working, such as the construction of landscaped acoustic bunds running parallel to the access road and thickening up the tree screening on the western side of the access road, as well as normal quarry mitigation controls such as limiting speed on the access road, restricting hours of working to 0700-1800 Mondays to Fridays and 0700-1300 Saturdays, ensuring that the access road is suitably hard surfaced and maintained and restricting the use of reversing bleepers on mobile plant'.

The Air Quality (AQ) report (Appendix 5) concludes that, 'As a result of the identification of dust sources and the surrounding dust sensitive receptors, mitigation measures for each potentially dust generating activity have been recommended. Following the implementation of these mitigation measures and the natural screening provided by the mature woodland surrounding the site, dust impacts on surrounding receptors from the proposed quarry is considered to be insignificant..' We confirm that the mitigation measures recommended in the AQ report can and will be implemented as part of the scheme of working and restoration.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS IN MIN 38 SITE ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS: We agree that the site would, if allocated in the Minerals Sites DPD, and then granted permission, be the closest site to Great Yarmouth. We are also encouraged by, and agree with the positive conclusions as follows:-

* there would not be any highways concerns regarding the site entrance with the provision of a dedicated junction onto the A143;
* the coniferous plantation is reaching the end of its life;
* the site will be the subject of an excellent restoration scheme offering significant ecological gains with wet woodland and dry heathland (priority BAP targets);
* The site CAN be worked with relatively little landscape and amenity impact as the existing marginal tree belts will be retained; &
* Finally there will be the opportunity to reveal potentially valuable and rare archaeological remains and geomorphological structures.

The negative statements within this part of the MIN 38 Site Allocation Statement are addressed, as follows:-

* Part of the site is within the Broads Authority area (which has the status of a National Park). However, the opportunity of combining mineral extraction with coniferous woodland harvesting gives an EXCEPTIONAL opportunity for restoring the site to a mix of wetland/wet woodland and dry heathland, which are BAP habitat target types. It would also enable more formal public access to this part ofWaveney Forest to be offered, as part of the restoration proposals. The statement that there is a 'policy presumption against mineral working there' (in the Broads) is incorrect and does not reflect MPS1 on this matter;
* We also refute the statement that, 'there will be an impact on various European protected species'. The habitat of the raresnail Vertigo angustior will not be affected. A full ecological survey of the proposed mineral working areas and their environs will be carried out as part of the planning application and EIA and if necessary, suitable, sufficient mitigation will be incorporated into the proposals to ensure that there is no significant effect upon any protected species.
* The loss of 'woodland habitat' would be confined to coniferous plantation areas; There will be no loss of public footpaths or bridleways during the working and restoration of the site and as each phase is restored, more formal public access can be delivered;

* The access road onto the A143 passes close to dwellings (on both sides) and it was considered that even if landscape impacts of the access road can be made acceptable (through planting and screening), there is the possibility of elevated levels of noise and dust affecting local residents. These matters have been addressed in Appendix 2 (landscape), Appendix 4 (noise) and Appendix 5 (dust). These technical reports confirm that there will not be elevated levels of noise and dust from the access road and that the access road can be suitably suitably screened by a planted bund to the west adjacent to Fritton Warren which would tie in with the existing woodland to the west. To the east the access road would be in a cutting/screened by a grassed bund which would be graded into the field so that it can remain in agricultural use.
* The recently discovered World War II bunkers could be impacted upon. This matter is addressed in Appendix 3. As these sites are not currently listed, it has been difficult for our heritage advisor to obtain details regarding their location or importance in the time allowed for consultation responses. Prior to finalising the layout of the development area, as part of the planning application and EIA, Brett will commission an archaeological survey of the proposed working areas and access road. Although it is unlikely that nationally important remains exist within the PDA, should they do so, there is a presumption in favour of preservation in situ, as recommended in local and national planning policy. For remains of lesser importance, it would still be desirable to try to preserve them, but if this is not possible, a programme of excavation and recording may be an acceptable alternative. The heritage report in Appendix 3 concludes that, depending upon the location of World War II remains (and taking into account the health and safety of public access), it may be possible to incorporate a visitor trail with interpretation into the restoration. This could become an important local history and educational resource.

PLANS: supplied to NCC
FRII01 Brell Aggregates - Frillon Potential Working Areas
FIGURE 5 David Jarvis Associates Restoration Concept Plan (also in
Appendix 2)

APPENDICES: supplied to NCC
APPENDIX 1 - SLR Consulting Hydrogeological and Hydrological
Assessment Dec 2009
APPENDIX 2 - David Jarvis Associates Frillon, Norfolk, Landscape
Proposals Dec 2009
APPENDIX 3 - Andrew Josephs Waveney Forest, Frillon, Norfolk
Response on Cultural Heritage Issues
APPENDIX 4 - SLR Consulting Noise Assessment December 2009
APPENDIX 5 - SLR Consulting. Air Quality Assessment December 2009
APPENDIX 6 - Frtton Access Junction Design Statement and plans

LANDSCAPE PROPOSALS
CONCLUSIONS: In taking account of the comments received regarding the site following consultation on the Issues and Options stage of the Site Allocation DPD, and through the undertaking of more detailed assessments, the area now proposed for inclusion within the DPD as being suitable for mineral working has been greatly reduced. The site avoids ecologically sensitive areas and retains the areas of broadleaf woodland for screening purposes.

The likely areas of mineral extraction, potential phasing of the extraction operations,
potential site access and plant site location and resultant restoration concept scheme
have all been considered as part of this report.

5.3 With respect to the site's proximity to the Halvergate Marshes SSSI, Breydon Water and Broadland SPA, Breydon Water and Broadland RAMSAR Sites and The Broads SAC, the proposed site is considered to be of sufficient distance from the areas subject to these designations, between 2.25km and 2.75km, that there would not be a significant effect on such.

In terms of the landscape aspects relating to the site's proposed allocation, it is considered that, with the mineral extraction areas being limited principally to the areas of coniferous forest, with the retention of significant areas of broadleaf woodland, reedbeds and heathy rides, both the principal areas of ecological interest would be avoided, as well as allowing for enhancement and re-population of species from these areas, through sensitive restoration. In addition the extraction areas would remain appropriately screened.

The prospects for delivering wider policy benefits as part of an after-use led scheme are also considered high in relation to both ecological and amenity enhancement, through the creation of both Wet Woodland and Lowland Heathland which are both Biodiversity Action Plan Targets and for formalisation of public access and enhancement of facilities, including educational and interpretative opportunities, for all users at the site.

CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT
CONCLUSION: This report has made an assessment of the potential effects upon the setting of listed buildings and a scheduled monument that may result from the development of a quarry in Waveney Forest, Fritton, Norfolk. Within 750m of the proposed development area (PDA) are 12 listed buildings, one of which, the grade I listed St Olave's Priory is also a scheduled monument open to the public.

In response to Norfolk County Council's invitation for comments on Minerals Site Allocations Development Plan Documents - Issues and Options, English Heritage responded that they had "significant reservations about the allocation of this site in terms of the negative historic environment impact". This report addresses English Heritage's concerns. The report also considers the potential of military remains of 20th century date.

An historical assessment was undertaken to establish how the land of the PDA historically relates to the local landscape. The area remained open heath until 1859 when the railway line to Great Yarmouth cut through the heath land. The process of planting the woodlands that has eventually led to the creation of Waveney Forest started in the 20th century. The majority of
the PDA was heath until after 1945.

A site visit was undertaken to examine the visual and setting relationship between the PDA and the various listed buildings in the vicinity and the scheduled monument (and grade I listed building) of St Olave's Priory. It immediately became apparent that the PDA comprised quite dense mature coniferous and broadleaved woodland and that should it be possible to leave a peripheral belt of trees undisturbed around the external boundary of the PDA no views would be possible of the proposed workings from outside.

It is known that within the forest there are a number of World War II structures, as well as evidence of military use back to the Civil War. In the timescale allowed for this response it has not been possible to carry out a systematic survey of archaeological remains within the PDA. The full extent of the military archaeology remains in the forest is not known, nor which would be affected by the current proposals. The main problem is that the current forestry makes survey difficult, coupled with the fact that when they were built every effort was made to conceal and camouflage their existence.

It is recommended that, prior to finalising the layout of the PDA, and as part of the planning application and Environmental Impact Assessment, Brett Aggregates Limited commission an archaeological survey of the proposed working areas and access road.

When the results of the archaeological survey are available and the locations of military (and archaeological features of earlier periods) are known, discussions should be held with Norfolk County Council. Although it is unlikely that nationally important remains exist within the PDA, should they do so there is a presumption in favour of preservation in situ, as recommended in local and national planning policy. For remains of lesser importance, it would still be desirable to try and preserve them, but if this is not possible, a programme of excavation and recording may be an acceptable alternative.

With appropriate mitigation, the proposed development would, in our opinion, not have a significant effect upon the setting of any listed buildings or the Scheduled Monument of St Olave's Priory.

Furthermore, should restoration to heathland be achievable, this would better reflect the historical landscape of the area (and the setting of the military features) than the current coniferous woodland.

Depending on the location of World War II remains (and taking into account the health and safety of public access), it may be possible to incorporate a visitor trail with interpretation into the restoration. This could become an important local history and educational resource.

From a cultural heritage perspective, and assuming that preservation in situ of any nationally important archaeological remains is achievable, the development would accord with national and local planning policy.

NOISE ASSESSMENT
CONCLUSION: Brett Aggregates Limited has appointed SLR Consulting Limited to carry out a noise assessment to determine the impact of heavy goods vehicles using the access route to the proposed Fritton sand and gravel quarry near Great Yarmouth in Norfolk.

The noise assessment has been conducted in accordance with the policies of Great
Yarmouth Borough Council and the guidance contained in British Standard 5228:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites, Part 1: Noise and the draft Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment.

The assessment is based on noise measurements taken at the site over a typical one-hour daytime period and considers the potential impact from noise generated by heavy goods vehicles on the existing noise climate at nearby noise-sensitive properties.

The assessment has shown that worst-case predicted noise levels from heavy goods vehicles movements associated with the proposed quarry development would have a minor, barely perceptible, impact at the nearest residential receptors.

In view of the above, mitigation measures to reduce the noise impacts of goods vehicle movements are considered unnecessary. However, the applicant is prepared to include suitable noise mitigation measures in the scheme of working, such as the construction of landscaped acoustic bunds running parallel to the access road and thickening up the tree screening on the western side of the access road, as well as normal quarry noise mitigation controls such as limiting speed on the access road, restricting hours of working to 0700-1800 Mondays to Fridays and 0700-1300 Saturdays, ensuring that the access road is suitably hard surfaced and maintained and restricting the use of reversing bleepers on mobile plant.

AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT
CONCLUSION: This assessment has considered the potential impacts of the proposed mineral extraction at Fritton Gravel Reserve. Baseline conditions at the site have been assessed, with particular attention paid to the impact of the access road on surrounding receptors.

The potential impacts of the proposed development have been assessed in terms of potential emissions of particulates (dust).

As a result of the current low ambient concentrations of PM10, the location of local receptors to the application site and the coarse particles typically associated with sand and gravel workings, further assessment has not been undertaken. Best practice measures for control of particulates are considered sufficient to control emissions travelling beyond the site boundary and ensure PM10 concentrations in the local area remain below the AQS.

With regard to the deposited dust impacts from the proposed quarry, receptors considered to have an elevated risk of dust impacts are the residences within Fritton, located in close proximity to the south-eastern boundary. The mature belt of woodland located to the west of these properties is considered to provide an effective natural dust barrier to minimise the dispersion of particulates beyond the site boundary.

There are three residential properties in close proximity to the access road that would be susceptible to dust impacts should the access road introduce a significant dust source, the closets of which is located at a distance of approximately 80m.

As a result of the identification of dust sources and the surrounding dust sensitive receptors, mitigation measures for each potentially dust generating activity have been recommended. Following the implementation of these mitigation measures and the natural screening provided by the mature woodland surrounding the site, dust impacts on surrounding receptors from the proposed quarry is considered to be insignificant.

All potential dust impacts from the proposed development are considered to be reversible i.e. the risk of impact will cease on completion of the extraction and restoration activities at the site.

Representation ID: 73496

OBJECT Ms V L Baines

Summary:

NEWSPAPER CLIPPING SUPPLIED: I am enclosing this article regarding the beauty and the benefits of our woodlands.
I hope you have time to read it and understand at the end of it just why Fritton Woods is appreciated so much by so many. Please save our local woodland - it is the only one we have.

Representation ID: 73495

OBJECT Mrs Jenny Prettyman

Summary:

LANDSCAPE: It was such a shock to learn that Fritton Woods are again under threat from the extraction of aggregates.
It is an area of great natural beauty which the public are privilaged to enjoy (though the dropping of litter there saddens and angers me greatly; it seems an insoluble problem).
It would be so sad to to lose this valuable amenity and I support any means of preventing it's loss.

Representation ID: 73462

OBJECT Ms Stephanie Barlow

Summary:

PROPOSAL AMENDMENT: I understand that the new planning application for mineral extraction at Waveney Forest is reduced in size from the original plan, which somewhat begs the question, "Why bother?". The level of disruption and environmental impact will be similar but the output from the site will be less. Does the company now need less aggregate or does this mean multiple sites are needed? Either way, this makes no logical sense (apart from to the developers who obviously see commercial gain in their proposal).
The many compelling arguments submitted by the Fritton Parish Council team (led by Keith Nunn) initially resulted in Norfolk County Council rejecting Waveney Forest as a potential mineral site. But money talks. The development company submitted a fresh planning application on the last day of the recent public consultation.

HIGHWAYS: As for the A143 being earmarked to take traffic to and from the site, yet another police and ambulance siren can be heard as the emergency services respond to another accident on our local roads. The idea of adding heavy vehicles to the existing mix seems an act of madness. I do hope you'll consider the impact on those families who will inevitably experience injury or tragedy as a result of this increased heavy and slow traffic before making a final decision in this case.
Norfolk County Council have also amazingly approved the A143 as a "suitable access route" for heavy traffic to and from the site. Irrespective of the road network being wholly unsuitable, no consideration appears to have been given to the single track access road leading to and from the A143 and how this will bear up under such pressure.

CLIMATE CHANGE: With the memory of the climate change conference in Copenhagen still fresh in our minds, I am writing to highlight a battle that my local community is having with planners at Norfolk County Council to prevent a national mineral extractor from being given permission to destroy Waveney Forest in Norfolk.
The reason for this letter is that I feel that intervention at the highest level is needed to say NO. It is NOT acceptable (as we fight climate change and try to decrease levels of carbon dioxide) to destroy a 326 acre forest for commercial gain. It is astounding that this notion is even entertained, but as the company have invested money in submitting further plans it is clear they have no qualms about destroying an area of natural beauty on the Broads or about the wider environmental impact.
We are all susceptible to the "not on my doorstep" mentality, but surely we should be planning to CREATE more 326 acre forests not destroy those that exist. If everyone took ownership of caring for their local environment as we are trying to do, then maybe the country could succeed in meeting its collective responsibility to reduce pollution and hit climate change targets.
I appreciate that you cannot override planning laws but I would urge you to take a stand and help us make a difference to our local environment. Tony Wright MP and a number of councillors have been involved in the campaign to save the forest, and I'm sure they will give you any additional information you require.

LANDSCAPE: The site is a major woodland and part of it sits within the Broads Authority National Park. It is an area of natural beauty, recreation and a wildlife haven.

Representation ID: 73454

OBJECT Mrs V Sawdon

Summary:

I have signed the petition against this [the proposal at Fritton Woods] and I also wish to make my objections clearly known.

ECOLOGY: Not only is Fritton Wood a local beauty area with numerous wildlife living in and on its edges, foxes, owls, herons to name a few, it would also be lethal to the local environment from traffic pollution.

HIGHWAYS: The narrow A143 that runs through Haddiscoe, St. Olaves, Fritton and on to Bradwell cannot cope with any more heavy goods vehicles. These are small country roads which were not designed to carry heavy traffic.

HEALTH & SAFETY: Working in the local hospital we regularly have many accidents from the Haddiscoe bends road and sadly many of these are fatalities. Once the A143 is blocked with an accident it usually stays that way until the vehicle can be removed meaning a trip via Lowestoft or Norwich to go a few miles.
Please, please let common sense prevail, you have already turned down planning application once, please support this local community and do so again.

Representation ID: 73335

OBJECT Ms M Tripp

Summary:

AMENITY: I with the other 20,000 will keep objections going to keep our village, a lovely peaceful place to live.

HIGHWAYS: Between Fritton and St Olaves we don't have a pavement. It's dangerous with ordinary heavy traffic. So please no more.

ECOLOGY: Just lovely trees, birds and wildlife.

Representation ID: 73333

OBJECT Mr & Mrs J & J Burton and 1 other

Summary:

We object to the new min.38 proposal for all the previously submitted reasons plus those listed below.

HIGHWAYS: We live near and use the A143 on a daily basis and in our opinion it is unsuitable to carry heavy aggregate lorries from and into Fritton and St.Olaves.
The A143 is on the top 10 list of dangerous roads in Norfolk- as stated in the local press.
Bradwell to Gt .Yarmouth is gridlocked regularly due to the schools along the Beccles Road, Bradwell traffic lights and all merging traffic at the Pasteur Roundabout. This will not change until there is a 3rd river crossing.
Haddlscoe St Olaves and Fritton do not have a 30mph restriction.
There are so many dangerous bends with poor visibility in these 3 villages.
The right hand turn into New Road at Fritton is dangerous with a serious accident waiting to happen -this is just 200 yards from the proposed access.
The sirens of emergency vehicles travelling through Frltton are heard on a daily basis. The A143 between Haddiscoe and Fritton gets blocked too often -with traffic being diverted 19 miles via Oulton Broad and Lowestoft.
The A143 carries too many heavy skip, aggregate, refuse & articulated lorries all back and forth to the landfill at Aldeby.

ECOLOGY: The beautiful overhead canopy of trees and protected oaks twixt Fritton & St Olaves should not be destroyed to create an access junction for a mineral pit.

PROXIMITY: If this site was selected for its' proximity to Gt. Yarmouth and if the A143 cannot handle the traffic -then it should be rejected again.

Representation ID: 73304

COMMENT Anglian Water Services Ltd (Ms Sue Bull)

Summary:

WATER SUPPLY: No Assets affected.

Representation ID: 73145

OBJECT Mr DJ Sewell

Summary:

LEISURE USE: Although not strictly a 'public open space', the public has for some time been granted access to the Woods by its owners. As a result, they are used daily by dog walkers, horse riders, hikers, nature study groups, exercise therapy groups promoted in local doctors' surgeries, cyclists, and various adventure groups for children. I walk my own dogs there every day, as do many others that I regularly meet there. There are almost no open spaces in the area that are available to the public and this one is enormously important to us. Given this intensive use by a wide spectrum of the public, I cannot believe that there are not more suitable sites among the many that were on the initial list of potential sources of aggregates.

HIGHWAYS: The roads in the area are not suitable for the heavy trucks which would be used to carry the aggregates away

AMENITY: and the noise pollution could be considerable.

LANDSCAPE: The site would be an eyesore, visible from the river and therefore detrimental to the tourist trade, which is so important to the local community.

ECOLOGY: The Woods are an important habitat for some rare wildlife.

Representation ID: 73144

OBJECT Mr AF & Mrs JE Sutton and 1 other

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: The A143 is a very busy road and in my and many other villagers opinion has increased noticeably over the past few months. The A143 between the Belton crossroads to Haddiscoe is already an accident black spot with fatalities. The accident rate can only increase with additional loaded HGVs trying to negotiate entry and exit to the site.
I believe my own property was refused permission to have its main entrance and exit onto the A143 on safety grounds and this was in the 1960's therefore I must ask what has changed to allow HGVs to do it in 2010. I also believe the field next to the Old School House was refused development permission for the same reason (confirmation needed via old planning records).

Representation ID: 73143

OBJECT Mr C Nash

Summary:

LEISURE: Should this proposal be allowed to proceed the result would without doubt devastate an area of tranquillity and delightful walks that have been enjoyed by people, from as far afield as Caister and even Lowestoft, for more that 150 years. It is documented that Fritton Woods have been used as a local amenity since the 1850's.

AMENITY: Anyone who has had cause to visit a gravel extraction pit (as I have) will confirm that the level of noise created there is quite deafening. There are graders and crushers rattling away, creating enormous quantities of dust and noise, compounded by the roaring engines and penetrating continuous bleeping of reversing heavy diesel trucks. I know that this volume of noise can be heard from at least a mile away on a still day and when one considers that the prevailing wind in Fritton is from the South West it becomes obvious that the village will be subjected not only to the unbearable perpetual racket but also the great amount of dust drifting across the village that this type of operation inevitably creates; this would bring into being an unquestionable health hazard.

ARCHAEOLOGY: As to Fritton, there is also the matter of archaeological heritage. The underground tunnels, rifle range and other reminders of wartime military use should truly be listed by English Heritage or similar organisation. All the local pill boxes, for example, the one at Johnsons Boatyard at St. Olaves are listed buildings so a precedent does exist.

LANDSCAPE: You have doubtless been made well aware of the destruction of landscape and ecology

HIGHWAYS: also of the misery that even more heavy trucks thundering through the village will occasion so I will not labour the point.

1.8: In the "A to Z of Council services" booklet sent to all residents, Norwich County Council makes great play of its recycling, carbon footprint reduction and generally
promotes its "green" policies and clearly states that the Council is "committed to the conservation of our countryside ".
I would urge the Planners to select a suitable gravel pit location that will not blight
communities and destroy woodlands, for if the Council allows the gravel pit at Fritton
Woods to go ahead it will responsible for destroying an entire forest thus driving a horse and cart through its so called "green "policies and making a mockery of "conserving the countryside "

Representation ID: 67883

OBJECT Miss R M Green

Summary:

ECOLOGY: With regards to the [Fritton Woods Extraction Project], I find the concept of aggregate extraction from Fritton Woods totally unacceptable. It will ruin forestry, flora and wildlife, in an age where we are taught to conserve the countryside woodlands. If this were to take place it would have devastating results on nature.
I hope common sense prevails and that Fritton Woods will be saved from devastation.

ALTERNATIVE SITE: However, I do have a suggestion of resolve. Folkes Plant and Aggregates, Butt Lane, Burgh Castle, Great Yarmouth Norfolk. They are a prosperous company with aggregates and minerals to extract, with ten acres of land still to explore, it seems common sense to myself to approach this company for the needs required. They are local and have a fleet of haulage machinery, lorries, etc ready to oblige.

Representation ID: 67800

OBJECT Mr Tony Wright

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: Whilst there were considerable objections to the County Council to the previous consultation on Fritton Woods, one of the concerns expressed was the amount of traffic this would generate in the village and beyond. Great Yarmouth as you know is already congested and since our new harbour has been built the Highways Agency and County Council have decided on a third river crossing route across the Yare to alleviate a lot of this congestion, not just in the town area but also the heavily congested Pasteur roundabout. It is also a fact that when the Government had a roads review in the late 90's the proposal then was to have the third river crossing to the north of Yarmouth, connecting to the Acle Straight. However the review then found that more benefit would be delivered with a crossing at the now agreed position. This is a clear indication of the amount of traffic already creating congestion and no doubt with the Harbour just complete, we are expecting more lorries and traffic on the road. Therefore, whilst it was made clear by the County Council that the Fritton Woods proposal was unacceptable with the amount of traffic already being generated, and the narrow roads of Fritton and of course, St Olaves it would surely be foolish to now allow the application to proceed.

ECOLOGY: I have also been informed that some trees have a Tree Preservation Order on them at the proposed entrance/exit to the site.

Representation ID: 67534

OBJECT Fritton Action Rescue Group (Mrs Jan Burton) and 1 other

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: One very disturbing concern is that the A143 through the villages of St Olaves, Fritton, Bradwell and Gorleston is not considered an already very busy trunk road. For your information there are 4 schools along this stretch of road between Haddiscoe and Gorleston - morning and late afternoon/evening traffic is horrendous and threatening to those children. Also, as you know, Fritton itself is on the Norfolk list of dangerous blackspots, there is even a roadsign stating hazardous road! Please note the enclosed photographs. They speak for themselves taken at non-peak time yesterday. The daily heavy lorries, of which there are hundreds, attempt to negotiate the dangerously narrow bend in conjunction with breaking in time for a right-hand queue turning into Fritton. We cannot begin to imagine the carnage should another 200 lorries per day be allowed to use this unsuitable stretch of road. With respect local residents who live alongside theA143 see far more incidents than those who visit to undertake a snap-shot survey.

LOCAL OPINION: The second concern, and this is important, is the fact that the 20,000 strong petition seems to have been ignored - not even mentioned. Please see attached Daily Telegraph article on Local communities being taken notice of and the new Government guidelines to County Councils. Local people should be taken into account as they know, at the end of the day, what is best for their own community.

ECOLOGY: Obviously the third major concern is to retain the only Forest that Norfolk has on the east coast. The Waveney Forest is a much loved amenity and it should undergo a regeneration process, but you have had countless letters regarding this.

TOURISM: The last, but not least, concern is that NCC must protect an area of great tourist significance. One only has to use the A143 to see just how many wonderful and unique family attractions we have in the area.

Representation ID: 67533

OBJECT Mr C R Coe

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: I wish to register my objection to the recent news that the A143 road is considered suitable for use by sand & gravel lorries by the transport department for the transportation of the materials should the appeal be successful.

In my opinion this road is totally inadequate for the additional heavy traffic this site would generate. One has only to take into consideration the acute bends ie Jolly Anglers Corner in Fritton. 2 Lorries already find in difficult should they meet on the bend, this coupled with the notorious and dangerous bends on Haddiscoe Dam. And taking into account the build up of traffic caused by the Traffic lights on St Olaves bridge makes the decision of the Transport Department somewhat suspect!!

Representation ID: 67532

OBJECT H Townshend

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: I understand that the Highways Department has confirmed that the A143 Beccles Road has the capacity to take the necessary vehicles required to service the proposed site. I think it would be quite obvious from a visit to Fritton that this is not the case. There is a blind, narrow bend running through part of the village where existing traffic already struggles. Where a lorry and a van pass one or other has to stop, it is worse when two lorries meet. There is already considerable congestion in Bradwell and dangerous bends over Haddiscoe Dam.

Representation ID: 67531

OBJECT Mrs Linda Ward

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: I understand that the Highways Department has confirmed that the A143 Beccles Road has the capacity to take the necessary vehicles required to service the proposed site. I think it would be quite obvious from a visit to Fritton that this is not the case. There is a blind, narrow bend running through part of the village where existing traffic already struggles. Where a lorry and a van pass one or other has to stop, it is worse when two lorries meet. There is already considerable congestion in Bradwell and dangerous bends over Haddiscoe Dam.

Representation ID: 67530

OBJECT Mrs Linda Ward

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: I understand that the Highways Department has confirmed that the A143 Beccles Road has the capacity to take the necessary vehicles required to service the proposed site. I think it would be quite obvious from a visit to Fritton that this is not the case. There is a blind, narrow bend running through part of the village where existing traffic already struggles. Where a lorry and a van pass one or other has to stop, it is worse when two lorries meet. There is already considerable congestion in Bradwell and dangerous bends over Haddiscoe Dam.

Representation ID: 67529

OBJECT Annette Collen

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: I understand that the Highways Department has confirmed that the A143 Beccles Road has the capacity to take the necessary vehicles required to service the proposed site. I think it would be quite obvious from a visit to Fritton that this is not the case. There is a blind, narrow bend running through part of the village where existing traffic already struggles. Where a lorry and a van pass one or other has to stop, it is worse when two lorries meet. There is already considerable congestion in Bradwell and dangerous bends over Haddiscoe Dam.

Representation ID: 67528

OBJECT Mrs S J Wyatt

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: I understand that the Highways Department has confirmed that the A143 Beccles Road has the capacity to take the necessary vehicles required to service the proposed site. I think it would be quite obvious from a visit to Fritton that this is not the case. There is a blind, narrow bend running through part of the village where existing traffic already struggles. Where a lorry and a van pass one or other has to stop, it is worse when two lorries meet. There is already considerable congestion in Bradwell and dangerous bends over Haddiscoe Dam.

Representation ID: 67527

OBJECT Ms Tracey Jordan

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: I understand that the Highways Department has confirmed that the A143 Beccles Road has the capacity to take the necessary vehicles required to service the proposed site. I think it would be quite obvious from a visit to Fritton that this is not the case. There is a blind, narrow bend running through part of the village where existing traffic already struggles. Where a lorry and a van pass one or other has to stop, it is worse when two lorries meet. I live on this bend and have first hand knowledge of the difficulties there already are. There have been accidents and several near misses. A neighbours wall was knocked down last year and there have been vehicles driven into the embankment adjacent to my home. The number of accidents in this area has been on the increase particularly around the bends in Fritton where there has been loss of life. There is already considerable congestion in Bradwell and dangerous bends over Haddiscoe Dam.

Representation ID: 67526

OBJECT Mr I McIntyre

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: I understand that the matter of an access road joining the A143 at Fritton to allow gravel to be transported is being considered. Additional heavy lorries joining the A143 could only add to the already hazardous nature of this road. As a driver I daily risk my life driving to collect the post (we have no residential delivery) and have experienced numerous unavoidable near misses over the years. When egressing New Rd I must often wait a very long time until there is no traffic in sight from ther west ie there is 600 yards of clear road before I dare turn west on the A143. I must do this so that speeding vehicles rounding the Jolly Angler blind bend car swerve round me if required and not have to hit me to avoid a head-on smash. This road would probably be safe if drivers stuck to the rules. Unfortunately a substantial minority will not,as is testified by the all too frequent traffic accidents between Fritton and Haddiscoe.

More heavies on the A 143? No thanks!

Representation ID: 67525

OBJECT Mr R Dunn

Summary:

Below I list (40) reasons why it is felt that the site is not only not suitable but would be immensely catastrophic if it were to go ahead.

ECOLOGY:
1) What makes interesting reading is the Governments "Strategy for England's Trees, Woods and Forests"

http:/www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside-rddtearm_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) In this day and age when there is such an outcry about Global Warming, the Prime Minister was at a G8 summit in Japan at the beginning of July, 2008, about climate change stating that we need to do more to help the planet. In our opinion, to mutilate this forest is not doing more to help the plant but further destroying it. Plus Copenhagen starting December 7th, 2009.

3) You will not be able to move the plant life.

4) 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.

5) This is one of only a few spot in the U.K. where Adders are prevalent. Given that they are protected it would be inappropriate to move them.

6) The habitat of the VERTIGO MOULINSIANA - Snail - would be destroyed and this is protected by European Law.

LEISURE/EDUCATION:
7) 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 YarmouthBbeaches.
(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.

8. 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 the area s have been decimated and mutilated.

HIGHWAYS:
9. The 'Trunk' roads around the area will not be able to handle the increased heavy duty traffic.

10. 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.

11. Access to the specific area will be limited and difficult.

ELECTRICITY PYLONS:
12. 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.

COMPENSATION:
13. 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.

ECOLOGY
14. There will be further erosion of the Suffolk Sandling Heath

15. There will be pollution to the River Waveney

16. The "sub-aquafa" would be contaminated

ARCHAEOLOGY:
17. There are Unique Relics's from both WW1 and WWII that need to be preserved.

18. There is the ancient Bell Hill Battery

HIGHWAYS:
19. 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 HGV traffic should the pit go ahead.

AMENITY:
20. NCC 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

LEISURE:
21. Great Yarmouth is about 140 acres short of the required civil amenities for the area and this will further exacerbate the situation.

WATER TABLE:
22. Essex & Suffolk water table would come under stress from the excess usage.

ECOLOGY:
23. Part of Great Yarmouth Beach are set aside for Little Terns which are endangered. This is has a SSI classification but this will be in danger if the Forest is lost to dog-walkers & people trying to find an alternative for rest & relaxation.

VIABILITY:
24. Other pits in the area (Browston/Burch Castle & Raveningham) to not make it viable for another pit in my opinion.

MINERAL QUALITY
25. I understand that the quality of the sand is not that good.

ECOLOGY:
26. 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.

27. In March 2009, it was reported that the whole of the Broads are in jeopardy due to climate change; this will exacerbate the situation.

28. 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.

SMS CLASSIFICATION:
29. English Heritage are likely to get an S.M.S. (Special Monument Site) upon at least part of the forest

HIGHWAYS:
30. 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

31. New Road is the only access into the Forest and it is not suitable for HGV traffic. In several spots it is only suitable for one car and is therefore totally unsuitable for two HGVs going in opposite directions.

OBJECTIONS:
32. Great Yarmouth Borough Council have objected to the destruction of the Forest for use as a Gravel pit.

33. Fritton & St Olaves Parish Councillors have objected to the destruction of the Forest for use as a Gravel Pit

34. The Local Papers recorded Norfolk County Council being handed petition's with signatures in excess of 20,000 against the proposal.

35. It is sincerely hoped that this is not some political subterfuge by the Local Conservative Councillors to try and use this issue to discredit the current Labour Government as it could well backfire

ECOLOGY:
36. Valuable Reed Beds would be destroyed.

RIGHTS OF WAY:
37. Invaluable public footpaths and rights of way would need to be destroyed.

TOURISM:
38. It would have a detrimental effect on Local Tourism

HIGHWAYS:
39. A suggested entrance through a field adjacent to the Warren in Fritton is unsuitable because it is on a hill and the entrance and exit sightline is not sufficient.

AMENITY:
40. Noise levels would dramatically increase to excessive levels for residents.

Representation ID: 67524

OBJECT Mrs Linda Mary Clark

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: Myself and many others have the view that the Waveney Forest Site should be discounted, the A143 is already overloaded with heavy traffic, and I myself have a major task just to cross the road to post a letter in our local post office. Many a time I have to sprint across as they come thundering round the bend so quickly. The Haddiscoe Bends are a further cause of accidents, the high number of vehicles that use this every day is unbelievable causing major congestion at the traffic lights at St Olaves. New Road is already in a terrible state, if this development goes ahead it will be even worse.

ECOLOGY: I live within a few minutes of Waveney Forest, and I often hear the owls at 6.00 in the morning and again late at night which is beautiful, all this and much wildlife will be lost and destroyed if this mad scheme goes ahead.

TOURISM: The forest itself has some lovely walks and so many people use it to take their families out at the weekends to savour the tranquillity and nature trails. We have people from miles around to come here for that reason and to exercise their dogs.

AMENITY: Please do not let this beautiful area become a site for noisy, dirty mineral and gravel extraction; we will have nothing left in this region.

Representation ID: 67523

OBJECT Ms A Austin and 1 other

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: I understand that the Highways Department has confirmed that the A143 Beccles Road has the capacity to take the necessary vehicles required to service the proposed site. I think it would be quite obvious from a visit to Fritton that this is not the case. There is a blind, narrow bend running through part of the village where existing traffic already struggles. Where a lorry and a van pass one or other has to stop, it is worse when two lorries meet.

There is already considerable congestion in Bradwell and dangerous bends over Haddiscoe Dam.

Representation ID: 67522

OBJECT Mrs J Pope

Summary:

ECOLOGY: We complain of what is happening to the forests in other parts of the world with the removal of the trees and the effect it is happening to our world because of this. How can anyone even think of doing this here. The damage to wildlife and the broads which our visitors come to see all year round. Please, please do not let this go through. To ruin all this is just unthinkable.


HIGHWAYS: The recommendations from transport bosses that the Great Yarmouth-Beccles trunk road could be used to carry traffic to and from the quarry in Waveney Forest is a disgrace. This is already a very dangerous narrow road with its twists and turns, are they going to ruin St Olaves such a beautiful place by putting a new bridge in? I know from experience if the lorries get held up at the bridge they will not sit and wait but take the first road they can find to get them down onto the A12 so it spreads out to Fritton - Gorleston - Hopton - Somerleyton etc. We already have the threat of a new road coming in for the new harbour. How is this beautiful area going to cope with all this?

AMENITY: Have you ever lived near a quarry? It's a nightmare: lorries going day and night, the dust in the summer and wet muddy dangerous roads in the winter. The damage done to the surrounding area does bear thinking about.

Representation ID: 67521

OBJECT Mrs C Butcher

Summary:

LEISURE: Many issues have been raised to save this wonderful, varied environment which enhances the lives of many, as the early petition showed.

* public recreation
* dog walking
* rambler groups
* safe place for children to play
* bicycle riders
* disabled groups
* nature walks
* tranquillity
* River Waveney - boating
* Oldest public house on the Broads
* Historical evidence
* Local wellbeing
* General enjoyment

AMENITY: There are also many reasons why the whole area including the forest should be preserved.

* River Waveney is prone to serious flooding. The road is being prepared for restoration now.
* Noise and air pollution
* Lack of safe roads and access points
* Spoiling holiday establishments trade, pubs, restaurants, hotels, golf course, lodges, garden centres and boating

TOURISM: The villages of Fritton and St Olaves treasure the surrounding amenities in an area of rare local accessible beauty which supports tourism and is admired by visitors and enjoyed by Norfolk and Suffolk people who travel from a distance. Many generations within families are very frond of Waveney Woods/Fritton Forest.

Representation ID: 67520

OBJECT Mrs P Hinty

Summary:

TOURISM: I understand there maybe an appeal coming up by the people who want to extract minerals from this site, and for them to succeed would be a terrible blow for this beautiful area of South Norfolk, and would destroy it for all time as a holiday area.

HIGHWAYS: The A143 is a very busy road. It has dangerous bends, hold-ups on the bridges at St Olaves. Huge amount of traffic at peak times and in holiday season, many accidents. Not a fit road for huge gravel lorries.

ARCHEAOLOGY: There are historically important World War II bunkers in the forest, and ramparts and gun emplacements from World War I.

ECOLOGY: It would be absolutely tragic to lose this wonderful forest, the many species of wildlife, birds, woodland walks and historical bunkers. A peaceful place to visit. It would be a great loss to this part of Norfolk - please do not let it happen.

Representation ID: 67519

OBJECT Miss M Smith

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: It is with total dismay that I have been told the A143 Gt Yarmouth - Beccles Road is under consideration for access and traffic - to a quarry at Fritton Woods if approved.

We do not want a quarry - A petition signed by 20,000 people have expressed this view -. Concern as to access has always appeared a major problem. The sound of Ambulance/Police sirens occur frequently. There has been a definite increase in traffic over the past 3-4 years. A lovely neat little village set to be destroyed.

Representation ID: 67518

OBJECT Patricia & Keith Gillings and 1 other

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: We also find very unacceptable the addition of countless gravel trucks on our already congested road ie A143.

Representation ID: 67517

OBJECT Mr & Mrs S & G Leggett and 1 other

Summary:

PROPERTY VALUE: We would like to make it known that we strongly object to these proposals on the grounds that this would de-value our property

AMENITY: and would completely ruin the lovely views and peace and quite that we now enjoy.

ECOLOGY: To site any kind of extraction site in this lovely village would be a crime and would take away something that a lot of people hold dear and have done for many years ie: Fritton woods.

Representation ID: 67319

OBJECT CPRE Norfolk (Mr James Frost)

Summary:

ECOLOGY/LANDSCAPE: MIN 38 at Fritton near Yarmouh is described as not acceptable. We back the conclusions behind this. We note that the Environmental Agency have objected and Norfolk Wildlife Trust and Natural England have expressed concern. Part of the site is in the Broads Authority National Park area. The closeness to Yarmouth is not an excuse to spoil this local amenity and we note that the Ramblers Association have also objected because of footpath impact.

Representation ID: 67295

SUPPORT Newcombe Estates Company Ltd represented by Martin Robeson Planning Practice (Miss Elizabeth Milimuka)

Summary:

RESTORATION/AFTERUSE: Mineral extraction at the site provides an exceptional opportunity to enhance the site's landscape and ecological qualities, maximising environmental and public benefit. The existing landscape of the commercial plantation is largely alien in character, lacks the habitat for biodiversity and has no formal public access. Importantly the restoration programme will provide wetland/wet woodland habitat and lowland heathland (priority BAP habitats), enhancing this national designation consistent with the reasons for nationally designating The Broads. Alongside formalised public access, this will enhance the site's capacity to be an attractive recreational facility for local residents and visitors. This is acknowledged in the Issues & Options (Preferred Options) Site Allocations DPD (October 2009), "restoration to wet woodland and heathland would be ecologically beneficial" (page 151) and "the site could be subject of a very good restoration scheme, offering significant ecological gains if wet woodland and lowland heathland (priority BAP habitats) were both included" (page 153).

DELIVERABILITY: The site offers the opportunity to extract 1.87 million tonnes of sand and gravel from the site over 22 years, providing a substantial 85,000 tonnes per year. This is a particularly significant contribution given the currently depleted landbank (see paragraph 9 below).


LANDSCAPE: The majority of the site does fall within the Broads which is granted national park equivalent status under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.
Under the Act, in discharging its functions the Authority must have regard to:
- The national importance of the Broads as an area of natural beauty and one which affords opportunities for open-air recreation;
- The desirability of protecting the natural resources of the Broads from damage; and
- The needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of those who live and work in the Broads.
Policy dictates that major development, such as this, should only take place in the Broads in exceptional circumstances (paragraph 21, PPS7). PPS7 defines the basis upon which exceptional circumstances can be determined:

RESTORATION/AFTERUSE:
I) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;
A key national consideration is improving this nationally designated area. Mineral extraction at the site provides an exceptional opportunity to enhance the site's landscape and ecological qualities, maximising environmental and public benefit. The existing landscape of the commercial plantation is largely alien in character, lacks the habitat for biodiversity and has no formal public access. Importantly the restoration programme will provide wetland/wet woodland habitat and lowland heathland (priority BAP habitats), enhancing this national designation consistent with the reasons for nationally designating The Broads. Alongside formalised public access, this will enhance the site's capacity to be an attractive recreational facility for local residents and visitors. There is therefore a national consideration underpinning the allocation in terms of enhancing this nationally designated area.

REQUIREMENT: In addition Minerals Policy Statement 1 requires a landbank for sand and gravel of at least 7 years, or a longer period if necessary. The Norfolk landbank is currently less than 5 years and therefore there is an urgent need for extraction sites to come forward to meet this requirement. There are therefore important considerations underpinning the allocation and subsequent development of this site.

EMPLOYMENT/LOCAL BUSINESS: Allocating this site will give greater certainty to its development, helping to ensure a secure and steady supply of minerals to the construction industry, underpinning the growth of Great Yarmouth and serving to boost the local economy.

LOCATION:
ii) The cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it some other way;
The inherent nature of minerals extraction is that extraction can only take place where deposits exist and thus needs cannot be met in "some other way". As the Norfolk Minerals Plan states, "inevitably as the less sensitive sites are worked out, replacements in acceptable locations become increasingly harder to find" (paragraph 2.12). Having reviewed the alternative allocations being considered we are satisfied that there is no scope to fully meeting the landbank needs outside the designated area as effectively and sustainably as this site can, being the closest sand and gravel quarry to Great Yarmouth.

LANDSCAPE/ECOLOGY/RECREATION:
iii) Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.
- This submission, supported by additional technical appendices, highlights the exceptional opportunity offered by mineral extraction at the site and confirms that all of the concerns raised regarding potential impact on the environment, landscape and recreational opportunities are suitably addressed by the revised scheme.
- Mineral extraction at the site provides an exceptional opportunity to enhance the site's landscape and ecological qualities, maximising environmental and public benefit. The existing landscape of the commercial plantation is largely alien in character, lacks the habitat for biodiversity and has no formal public access. Importantly the restoration programme will provide wetland/wet woodland habitat and lowland heathland (priority BAP habitats), enhancing this national designation and returning the site to the character of The Broads. Alongside formalised public access, this will enhance the site's capacity to be an attractive recreational facility for local residents and visitors.
- The site boundary has been revised to exclude all public rights of way and the picnic area from the site (see plan at Appendix B). No public rights of way will therefore be affected by the proposal and with extraction limited to [...] potential working areas [...] and the retention of all deciduous trees and a tree belt bordering the site will significantly reduce the effect of the proposal on public amenity during extraction.

HIGHWAYS: All outstanding highway issues have now been addressed. It has been accepted that there are no specific highways safety concerns and suitable access management arrangements would be agreed as part of the planning application process. The access road to the site has been specifically designed to alleviate any noise or dust issues and the supporting technical studies confirm that the use of this access road will have an imperceptible impact on nearby dwellings.

ECOLOGY: The site boundary has been reduced to exclude the County Wildlife Site, the reedbeds and the majority of the remnant heathland. The potential minerals working areas have been specifically limited to exclude all remaining heathland, broadleaved woodland and the transitional area of the site between the floodplain and the rising ground to the east which contains the rare mollusc, Vertigo angustior. These measures address the outstanding concerns raised about impacts on the ecological value of the site during operation.

LANDSCAPE: The Heritage Assessment has addressed all outstanding heritage issues and concludes that "with appropriate mitigation and high-quality restoration, the proposed extension would not, from the findings of our research and observations on the site visit, have a significant effect upon the setting of any listed buildings of the Scheduled Monument of St Olave's Priory" (para 2.5). Given the extensive retention of broadleaved trees around the periphery of the site during extraction, the backdrop to all of the identified listed buildings in the area and the drainage mills along the River Waveney will be unaffected. Therefore the proposal will have no change on the setting of these buildings and from a cultural heritage perspective; development would accord with national and local planning policy.

ARCHAEOLOGY/GEOLOGY: This proposal offers a major opportunity to identify geological and archaeological remains and therefore the operators will incorporate the preservation of a section of former Holocene cliff-line on the site and propose a "watching brief" over the site during extraction.

RESTORATION/AFTERUSE: Moreover, the short term "imperceptible" impacts on the quiet enjoyment of the countryside are outweighed by the restoration benefits which would considerably enhance the enjoyment of this land and The Broads as whole. The restoration scheme represents substantial and significant nature conservation gains and maximises environmental and public benefit for example through:
- extensive formalised public access to the site, creating an attractive recreational facility for local residents and visitors,
- significant ecological gains with wetland/wet woodland habitat and lowland heathland (priority BAP habitats)
- a greater variety of habitats will be created at the site post extraction which will provide opportunities for a much greater diversity of species at the site as well as providing further opportunities for a number of species already present.
- As all three criteria can be met it is clear that there are "exceptional circumstances" to warrant this development in The Broads. By meeting development needs and creating an attractive recreational facility for local residents and visitors the proposal is in the public interest. Furthermore this submission demonstrates that development would be carried out to high environmental standards in accordance with PPS7.
- Finally, the emerging Allocations DPD confirms that for a favourable consideration of the proposal as an after-use led application leading to landscape enhancement, "further information would be needed to be provided on means of access, restoration levels, phasing etc" (page 151). Further information relating to all of these matters and others are provided in this submission; public access and amenity (paragraphs 22 to 25), the local highways network (paragraphs 26 to 35), ecology (paragraphs 36 to 50), heritage (paragraphs 51 to 55), geodiversity (paragraphs 56 to 57) and phasing, extraction boundaries, restoration levels and landscaping (paragraphs 58 to 64).

RIGHT OF WAY: The Ramblers Association have raised concerns over the implications of development on public rights of way [...].
- The site boundary has now been revised to exclude all public rights of way and the picnic area from the site [...]. No public rights of way will therefore be affected by the proposal.

AMENITY: Extraction will be limited to [...] potential working areas [...] and the retention of all deciduous trees and a tree belt bordering the site will significantly reduce the effect of the proposal on public amenity during extraction. The opportunity arises to fully capture the landscape and related benefits through the removal of the tree screen after extraction.

RESTORATION/AFTERUSE: The restoration scheme will considerably enhance the enjoyment of this land, to which there is no formal public access, by providing extensive formalised public access to an ecologically enhanced site. This will enhance the site's capacity to be an attractive recreational facility for local residents and visitors.

HIGHWAYS: The proposed new access junction off the A143, with a dedicated right turn lane, was proposed to avoid the need for commercial traffic in connection with the extraction and remediation works, to pass through the centre of the village of Fritton. On this premise its location was then governed by the need to obtain adequate horizontal and vertical visibility on the A143.
The extraction site would employ approximately 6-9 persons. It is intended that these persons would use the access road on a daily basis. Travel measures for employees would be agreed with the local planning and highway authorities in order to keep traffic levels on the access road as low as practicable. Suitable access management arrangements would be agreed and established.
To reconfirm, removing aggregate by river is no longer part of the scheme (see paragraph 45).
All outstanding highway issues have now been addressed. It has been accepted that there are no specific highways safety concerns and suitable access management arrangements would be agreed as part of the planning application process. The access road to the site has been specifically designed to alleviate any noise or dust issues and the supporting technical studies confirm that the use of this access road will have an imperceptible impact on nearby dwellings.

HEALTH & SAFETY: In respect of highway safety, a dedicated right turn lane has been incorporated with adequate visibility splays. Suitable access management arrangements would be agreed and established as part of the planning application process. As the emerging Allocations DPD concludes, "the site would, if allocated, be the closest sand and gravel quarry to Great Yarmouth, and with direct access to the A143 via a dedicated right-turn junction, there would not be any specific highway safety concerns" (page 152).

AMENITY: In respect of noise and dust, the alignment of the access road was devised to be equally set back from the gardens of houses in Fritton Village and at Fritton Warren. Due north of Fritton Warren the access has been realigned westwards to be further set back from the gardens of the houses in Fritton Village.
Noise and dust from the extraction will be alleviated by the retained treebelt bordering the site, which provides a sustainable solution to screening the development.
In addition, technical noise and air quality assessments have been undertaken which support this position.
The noise assessment confirms that, even without proposed noise mitigation measures, "the worst-case predicted noise levels from heavy goods vehicle movements associated with the proposed quarry development would have a minor, barely perceptible, impact at the nearest residential unit" (section 6.0).
The air quality assessment confirms that there will be no perceptible impact on dwellings in the area from dust. Following the implementation of recommended mitigation measures and the natural screening provided by the mature woodland surrounding the site, "dust impacts on surrounding receptors from the proposed quarry is considered to be insignificant" (section 9.0).

ECOLOGY:The Parish Council raised concerns that this development would result in damage to habitat and local wildlife. The Environment Agency have raised concerns about potential ecological impacts on the River Waveney and Natural England have sought the protection of the rare mollusc, Vertigo angustior on the site.
- An initial ecological appraisal of the site and the proposed development was undertaken by Ecology Solutions Ltd in 2005.
- This confirmed that there are no international, national or other statutory sites of nature conservation interest which would potentially provide a significant constraint upon development. Natural England have confirmed that the proposal is unlikely to have an impact on SSSIs in the wider area (i.e. Halvergate Marshes SSSI or Breydon Water SSSI/SAC).
- The site boundary has now been revised to exclude the County Wildlife Site (CWS), which will be preserved and protected during extraction with a buffer retained around it. However our ecological review of the CWS confirms that if the area were to be reassessed it would be less likely to be designated as a CWS in any event (paragraph 4.2).
- The site predominantly supports commercial plantation woodland which is of limited ecological value. The Corsican Pine is densely planted restricting the structural development of the woodland. It comprises a limited understorey, dominated by Bracken and Bramble, which in turn further restricts the development of a ground flora. The trees are reaching maturity and, as this is commercial woodland, they would therefore be felled in any event.
- We note that Natural England have raised issue with potential adverse impacts on Vertigo angustior, as the transitional area of the site between the floodplain and the rising ground to the east contains the only Norfolk population for this rare mollusc which is a European protected species. We can confirm that extraction will be limited to the upland areas of the proposed site, outside the transitional area and therefore the development meets Natural England's aspirations.
- The only habitats of greater ecological value within the site are the small areas of remnant ericaceous heathland, the area of reedbed and scattered semi-mature/mature trees.
- The remnant heathland areas within the CWS and narrow strips outside the CWS (see plan at Appendix B) are excluded from the minerals working areas and will be managed as part of the proposals. There remains some remnant heathland within the site, all of which has been excluded from the potential mineral working areas. There will be no impact upon the remnant heathland and on restoration a large proportion of the higher land will be restored to dry heathland habitat (see paragraphs 48 and 49).
- No deciduous woodland will be reworked (see plan at Appendix B) and the commercial woodland on the northern, western and south eastern boundaries of the site will be retained to form part of a screen against visual intrusion whilst extraction works are being undertaken. This tree belt will also act as a wildlife corridor during extraction works at the site.
- We note the Environment Agency's objection to the development on the premise that there will be impacts on the River Waveney from the transportation of aggregates by river. We can confirm that the removal of aggregates by river is no longer part of the scheme. As a result the reedbeds will be unaffected by the development. Therefore this National and County BAP habitat will be safeguarded during extraction and enhanced as part of the restoration scheme.
- A hydrogeology/surface water assessment has been undertaken to assess the impact on the protected species and habitats on and around the site. The assessment confirms that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, "with respect to groundwater and surface water, there are no significant residual impacts of the development" (section 4.0).

- Building on these ecological assessments a full Ecology survey and EIA would be undertaken at the application stage which will identify any further fauna n the site.
- Importantly, the greater variety of priority BAP habitats of lowland heathland and wetland/wet woodland habitat to be created at the site post extraction will provide opportunities for a much greater diversity of species at the site as well as providing further opportunities for a number of species already present. As the Ecological Appraisal confirms, "the restoration proposals represent substantial and significant nature conservation gains and maximum environmental and public benefit" (paragraph 4.22). This is acknowledged in the Issues & Options (Preferred Options) Site Allocations DPD (October 2009), "restoration to wet woodland and heathland would be ecologically beneficial" (page 151) and "the site could be subject of a very good restoration scheme, offering significant ecological gains if wet woodland and lowland heathland (priority BAP habitats) were both included" (page 153).
- The restoration scheme would significantly enhance the site as part of a site wide habitat management plan. The site could form part of a much larger, newly designated, County Wildlife Site, post extraction, which would accord with Policy NNV.15 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan which states the Borough Council's intention to "establish a series of accessible nature areas through the control of development".

LANDSCAPE: In response to English Heritage's concerns regarding potential historic environment impact, a heritage assessment has been undertaken. This assesses the role of the site in the setting of a number of listed buildings in the area including the Grade 1 St Olaves Priory, a Grade II* listed drainage pump, a Grade II* listed church and hall and the drainage mills along the River Waveney.
- Given the extensive retention of broadleaved trees around the periphery of the site during extraction, the backdrop to all of the identified listed buildings in the area and the drainage mills along the River Waveney will be unaffected. Therefore the proposal will have no change on the setting of these buildings.
- There is also the option to retain a remaining tree screen permanently post extraction if that meets the Council's aspirations. However, the results of the Heritage Assessment show that "should restoration to heathland be achievable, this would better reflect the historical landscape of the area than the current coniferous woodland" (section 4.2.3).

ARCHAEOLOGY/GEOLOGY: The assessment has considered the heritage issues of the remnants of military infrastructure known to exist on site, and an archaeological survey will be undertaken prior to finalising the layout of the primary development area.
- The Heritage Assessment has therefore addressed all outstanding heritage issues.
- We recognise the importance of geological and archaeological remains and the aspirations of the Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership for a watching brief during extraction. As the DPD states, "there could be the opportunity to reveal potentially valuable and rare archaeological remains and geomorphological structures" (page 153). The operators have incorporated the preservation of a section of former Holocene cliff-line on the site and propose a "watching brief" over the site during extraction.
- This proposal therefore offers a major opportunity to identify geological and archaeological remains.

PHASING/RESTORATION: The plan [supplied] confirms the extraction boundary, proposed phasing of extraction and restoration levels which have been generated to work most effectively and sustainably with the specific characteristics of the site. The more effective the extraction strategy, the quicker the operation period.

DELIVERABILITY: The site offers the opportunity to extract 1.87 million tonnes of sand and gravel from the site over 22 years, providing a substantial 85,000 tonnes per year. This is a particularly significant contribution given the currently depleted landbank (see paragraph 9 above).

PROPOSAL AMENDMENT: The site boundary has been reduced to exclude the County Wildlife Site, the reedbeds, the majority of the remnant heathland and all public rights of way in the area. The potential minerals working areas have been specifically limited to exclude all remaining heathland, broadleaved woodland and the transitional area of the site between the floodplain and the rising ground to the east which contains the rare mollusc, Vertigo angustior.
- Extraction will be limited to the potential working areas A, B, C and D, all over 100m from the nearest residential dwellings.
- The Landscape Proposals Report reviews the phasing and restoration levels of the scheme. The Report concludes that "the working of the site for minerals provides an exceptional opportunity to enhance the ecological interest in the locality through the replication of the historic land-uses (primarily dry heathland) and through the creation of Biodiversity Action Plan habitat including wet woodland" (para 4.9).
- The proposal continues to include a tree belt to protect long distance views. We can also confirm that the felling of the forest timber will be appropriately managed.
- We trust this information is sufficient to address your outstanding concerns relating to landscape, phasing, extraction and restoration and can now be favourably considered.

Representation ID: 67148

OBJECT Norfolk Wildlife Trust (Mr John Hiskett)

Summary:

A number of sites have been assessed as Not Acceptable Since the previous consultation in March 2008. Several of these were subject to objection from NWT at that time. Although we do not intend to comment further on these allocations, we are pleased to see that these sites have not been allocated in the current Further Issues and Options Consultation. As a result we strongly support the assessment as Not Acceptable for the following sites: MIN 111, MIN 89, MIN 63, MIN 97, MIN 49, MIN 60, MIN 102, MIN 38, MIN 42, MIN 41, MIN 94, MIN 18, MIN 58, MIN 57, MIN 52, MIN 24, and MIN 78.

Representation ID: 66774

OBJECT Mrs G Nunn

Summary:

ASSESSMENT PROCESS: My personal comment is that there was a 20,000 petition objecting to the proposal which was not mentioned on the summary. If you look at page 20 The Telegraph on 4.12.09.the Communities Secretary's speech stated that Councils must act if voters petitions highlight problems, or be subject to a scrutiny committee! I can email the article if necessary.

Representation ID: 66726

OBJECT Mr Keith Nunn

Summary:

PROPOSAL AMENDMENT: I am concerned that the developer of Min 38 has left it until the last few days of the consultancy before entering a new proposal. This seems to give local people little chance to object.

HIGHWAYS: I was incensed to read that the Highways Dept virtually encourage the use of the A143 to transport the minerals. I have personally consulted the Gt Yarmouth Council and they support the local peoples' view that the A143 is very congested from Bradwell (with its new feeder roads) into Gt Yarmouth and in view of the new harbour and with as yet no new bridge in sight this will only get worse until a new bridge is built. Today's paper states that cabinet papers say that funding for the start of planning for a bridge is speculative and may not be available until well after 2016 which must mean that you can say 2021 or later before traffic ever uses a new bridge.
The whole rational for the Fritton pit was that it was within ten miles of Gt Yarmouth. Unfortunately there is a complete blockage in Gt Yarmouth and coupled with the dangerous corners in both Fritton and Haddiscoe makes the A143 a poor choice. If you didn't go to Gt Yarmouth it simply would not be economical to transport the long distances to the south.

ECOLOGY: The present suggested access to the road would take away a number of fine oak trees for sightlines and also ruin the very desirable overhead tree canopy between our two villages.

AMENITY: In one fell swoop this project would ruin our quiet country life as we know it here and impose unknown and as yet unspecified number of heavy transport movements on our doorstep. All this without the obvious reversing horns and rattle of the graders, dust and all too certain devaluation of properties. My Parish council have sustained the quiet country ambience over the years by diligent control of local planning activities, all this to go in one very unpopular application.

ARCHAEOLOGY: The movement of the site eastwards would bring it nearer the village and into the area of the wartime hides and relics.

RECREATION: The suggestion that a new recreation area be developed is not helpful as the only road, New Road, can hardly sustain more visitors, the woods are very popular now and we certainly don't need more water in this National Park.

ALTERNATIVE SITES: You came to the correct decision before and as there now seems sufficient minerals under consideration without the unacceptable sites then I hope you are able to stand by your previous decision.

Representation ID: 66678

OBJECT Mr Richard Warner

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: The A143 appears to be considered by the Highways dept. as not particularly busy, and could therefore take the extra traffic of sand & gravel lorries from the forest. The A143 through Fritton is indeed busy and I have attached 3 photos to show this [supplied]: one shows general traffic at about 2:20pm, a second shows a lorry negotiating the bend outside the Jolly Anglers and if a sand & gravel lorry had been coming the other way there would have been a serious accident! The third shows the volume of traffic during the evening rush-hour outside the Fritton Decoy Pub (sorry about the quality).
If the forest access road were to be constructed in the field at TG465002, a number of oak trees by the roadside would have to be destroyed and more importantly that road would enter the forest right in the middle of the highest concentration of World War artefacts. If the access road was moved away from this area to link the east of the forest to the A143 at TG475006 it would cut through Angles Way footpath and hit the road in a 'High Accident Risk' area (see the road signs). If the present track at TM462996 were used, a connection to the forest would have to be made via the old railway line which is in the Broads Authority National Park.

RECREATION: As to the site itself, Waveney Forest is a well used amenity, enjoyed by families and dog walkers. There has to be more suitable sites than the only forest in this area (if my memory serves me right, the next forest is Thetford forest).

ECOLOGY: Its a pity that due to mismanagement (no replanting) the pines in this forest will all be cut down within a few years thus leaving only the deciduous trees (about 20% of the site), though this will please the Naturalists who like heathland. Last but not least our Government has issued a Paper showing the importance they attach to woods and forests entitled: 'A Strategy for England's Trees, Woods and Forests.' http://dps4.plants.ox.ac.uk/downloads/EnglandForestryStrategy.pdf

Representation ID: 66556

OBJECT Mr C Dearmun and 1 other

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: The A143 at Fritton is currently a dangerous stretch of road with the existing HGV's, particularly the narrow section between the Decoy and the top of the hill, as well as the double bend entering the village. There is barely room for two large vehicles to pass safely, and the thought of heavy traffic being extended as a result of movements of gravel lorries is very worrying.
I would have thought in any case, that a road that is frequently congested between Great Yarmouth and Haddiscoe would not be suitable for increased heavy goods operations.

Representation ID: 66555

OBJECT Mr William G Sawyer

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: [...] Congestion is more widespread than just in Fritton and St Olaves, it persists all along the route of the A143 from Haddiscoe to the Gapton Roundabout at Pasteur Road, Great Yarmouth. This congestion has been exacerbated in recent years by further residential developments in Bradwell which are accessed from the A143. There is a school entrance on the road, just before the road joins the dual carriageway. At school starting and finishing times there area always vehicles parked on both sides of the road which area difficult enough to negotiate without large lorries looming up on the horizon. There are accident 'blackspots' and various 'bottlenecks' which will only get worse and more dangerous should the anticipated high number of large lorries take this route.
The 'Haddiscoe Bends' are another cause of accidents, especially high sided vehicles ending up in the roadside ditches and causing long delays with motorises having to take long detours to arrive at their destination. When you bear in mind the high number of people who travel to work each day along this route, it results in great inconvenience and expense to all concerned especially with the high petrol/diesel prices.
There is a 'Keep Clear' box at the end of Priory Road St Olaves but motorists seem oblivious to this and often block the entrance to Priory Road, again causing inconvenience to those trying to exit from Priory Road. Congestion again, long delays at peak times caused by the traffic lights at St Olaves Bridge.

ARCHAEOLOGY: Consider also the adverse effect that tremors caused by even more large lorries on properties along the route of the A143, some of which have historical interest, ie the Bell public house at St Olaves, the oldest pub in Broadland.

LOCAL BUSINESS: Consider the possible adverse effect on businesses on the route of the A143, decoy Barn B&B Accommodation at Fritton. What guests would want to have to endure the noise of lorries thundering through the village when trying to sleep. Consider also the amount of people using other businesses along the route, ie Myhills Nursery, Fritton Lake, Fritton House Hotel, Cherry Lane Garden Centre, various Public Houses, Tesco Express (to name but a few) and again the school.

HEALTH & SAFETY: There is also a school crossing near The Sun public house at Bradwell,the traffic attendant puts his/her life at risk every day, even more lorries makes this duty more dangerous.
Drivers of all types of vehicles do not adhere to the current speed limits in force through the villages on the A143. It is becoming very dangerous to walk along the village footpaths and any increase in traffic will also increase this danger.

ECOLOGY: [T]here is a National Park along the northern border of the proposed site and the detrimental effect any development would have on the National Park and in particular Waveney Forest. Trees will be destroyed and subsequently wildlife. There are six mature oak trees situated at the proposed entrance of the proposed development which should be preserved. I believe implementation of a Tree Preservation Order is currently pending and once enforced the trees cannot be felled without legal consequence.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS: I would also point out that public opinion which is adamantly against the destruction of Waveney Forest and its subsequent development as a mineral and gravel site, is that public opinion to be lightly discounted.

WATER/POLLUTION: There is also the matter of drinking water to the area supplied by Fritton Lake, the quality of which will be seriously compromised should any gravel extraction take place. Is the health of local residents no concern?

RECREATION: I have spoken to residents of St Olaves who are already concerned about the state of footpaths in the village and how overgrown they are becoming due to lack of cutting back and maintenance. The path between The Bell PH and Priory Road and also that after the bridge in the direction of Haddiscoe are of particular concern. Residents and holiday makers use these footpaths and it is necessary to walk in single file because they are so overgrown. Local residents and holidaymakers like to take advantage of the beautiful area in which we live and holidaymakers visit.

CLIMATE CHANGE: We are all encouraged to reduce our carbon footprint by using our vehicles less, but because of the dangers of the inadequate road systems we are unable to walk safely in our villages.

RESTORATION: I do not want to live in an industrialised area, certainly it will never be restored to its former glory. I fear especially for future generations who will have to pick up the pieces.

Representation ID: 66554

OBJECT Fritton with St Olaves parish council (Mrs L M Clark)

Summary:

HIGHWAYS: The plan favours an access and the use of the A143. Your Highways dept seemed quite sanguine about the use of this road. Any local or inhabitant of Great Yarmouth will tell you that this road is congested and serious blockages and delays occur at Bradwell and all the way to the Pasteur Roundabout. Your Highways Dept claims that compared with the A12 or A140 the A143 has still got capacity, well of course it has if you compare with blocked up trunk roads then eventually all the roads will end up likewise! The Councillors of Great Yarmouth would agree that this road would not stand an unspecified extra number of lorries from Fritton and Haddiscoe, let alone the new Outer Harbour and the recent additional Bradwell developments that use it as their only access [...].
Fritton and Haddiscoe both have very tight and dangerous bends and the traffic moves in convoys due to the bridge traffic lights often backing up to the Lowestoft Road. Accidents happen continuously on the Haddiscoe Dam and so many bumps occur that are not recorded, though the Police will have knowledge of the number of times they are called here. This concern comes from local knowledge that is not correlated, by the different highways departments. Parish Council Minutes over the years back up these assertions.

LANDSCAPE: We observe that the developers are now favouring developing the higher ground. This is exactly the area of the underground chambers and county wildlife areas; it means also that they will be working a lot nearer the residential areas with the resultant problems that you rejected previously.

AMENITY: The noise, dust and devaluation considerations must all be magnified.
For the past thirty years Fritton and St Olaves has fought tirelessly against the nearby noise of leisure sites and struggled to sustain a quiet rural ambience, this plan puts all that aside in one fell swoop.

ECOLOGY: The suggested access is close to the residential areas and would necessitate the removal of a number of mature oak trees to afford sightlines. If this was allowed the exceptional overhanging tree canopy twixt our villages would disappear.
[L]oss of biodiversity, heathland and some protected species [...] all of this on top of a National Park which still runs along the northern boundary even after the main section ceases.
The developers state that a section of the woodland has reached the end of its life. This has always been the case and proper working of the woods particularly under the Forestry Commission previously saw a small area harvested and replanted each year.

ARCHAEOLOGY: [T]he desecration of the WWI & WWII relics

RECREATION: Loss of the only woodland amenity of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft

ASSESSMENT PROCESS: The 20,000 petitioners have not been mentioned in your summary; surely this amount of public opinion cannot be ignored and applies equally to the revised area. Also not mentioned were the reservations concerning the effect on the nearby Fritton Lake, where we get our drinking water. We are aware, if consulted, that the Environmental Agency's Groundwater and Contaminated Land Dept at Ipswich knows of the situation and supports our view of our local hydrogeology. They were not consulted in the first consultancy.

PROPOSAL AMENDMENT: For our village the latest proposals are nearer and thus far worse than before [...]. [W]e are forced to consider a very late application in very little time, hardly a democratic system that can be so manipulated against the little man.
At the Norfolk County Council cabinet meeting it was said that the remaining approved sites with some of the new ones could provide the necessary target minerals figure, therefore it seems illogical to affront 20,000 petitioners and villagers by allowing further consideration of this project. We urge you to stand by your previous decision.

Representation ID: 66476

OBJECT Great Yarmouth Borough Council (Mr K Balls)

Summary:

The Council supports Norfolk County Council's recommendation that the proposed mineral allocation site MIN38 is not an acceptable extraction site to be taken forward.
The Council agrees with the Parish Council's view that, if sufficient mineral provision can be achieved without the addition of the 'unacceptable' sites - such as MIN38 - then such sites should be permanently discounted.

HIGHWAYS: The Council agrees with the concerns of Fritton Parish Council. It considers the A143 to be inadequate to take the potential additional heavy lorry traffic associated with mineral workings; congestion is currently being experienced at Fritton and further heavy goods vehicles will add to the current highway difficulties.

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact the council directly.

Powered by OpusConsult