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 ISSUES AND OPTIONS DOCUMENT - Chapter 2 - How to get involved

Representation ID: 36373

OBJECT Mr Robert Risk and 1 other represented by Merrett and Co. (Mr Serinther Atkar)

Summary:

We are advised that although you are engaged in a process of consultation with the public in compliance with the relevant PPS that our clients have not yet received notification from the Council of the position as required by paragraph 22 of the Town and County Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999 (No.3280), which states that a planning authority (before deposit of its proposals) should give notice to any person whom they consider should be given notice. It cannot be disputed that by virtue of our client's property being sited in the midst of proposed mineral sites (MIN 9, MIN10, MIN11 and MIN14), as they are deemed to be persons who should be given notice, that notice should have been served on them. We are advised that our clients were appraised of the council's proposal, purely by chance. As far as our clients are concerned there has been no consultation.

We next refer you to paragraph 4.38 of PPS12 which states that if part II of the 1990 Act is not complied with or any regulations thereunder are not complied with, grounds thereby arise for challenge by way of a judicial review. On an initial evaluation of our client's case it is our view that there is sufficient to constitute a judicial review particularly on the grounds of maladministration even at this preliminary stage. In the course of time we reserve the right to bring such proceedings if appropriate. There is also the possibility of a blight notice being served.

Representation ID: 36192

OBJECT Mr Alan J Fossey

Summary:

For some reason, it was left for my new neighbours to inform me of the proposal (MIN101, MIN74, MIN76 & MIN77) (nothing was posted to my house informing me of these proposals or of any meetings on said matter).

Representation ID: 36184

COMMENT Miss Jenny Basford

Summary:

If there is somewhere to forward comments to about future NCC consultations are put online, I think perhaps it would be better to be able to have some way of editing one's representations if they have not yet been checked by a member of staff and published on the website. At the moment the site is not that user-friendly. It would be good if it stated online that it will take a long time for your representation to be checked due to the numbers of people who have put forward representations. Also, it would be handy if the system automatically sent an email to you when your representation had been published. Hopefully if the system is used again in future these comments might help.

Representation ID: 36078

OBJECT Miss A Coleman

Summary:

I am also concerned that the residents have been given too little time to object & that the Parish Council have not been consulted. Also the emphasis on replying via the website. Some of us do not have computers.

Representation ID: 35659

OBJECT Mr G Martinez

Summary:

[MIN 44]
The residents of West End (Briston) seem mostly unaware of the possible plans.

Representation ID: 35378

OBJECT Ms Lynda Lee

Summary:

[MIN 100, MIN 66, MIN 61, MIN 23, MIN 68]
It came as a great surprise to many of us as we had not been made aware officially of the proposals.

Representation ID: 34690

OBJECT Mr P Gyseman

Summary:

CONSULTATION
I would add that I only recently became aware of this proposal - local residents have not, in my view, been given adequate information or sufficient time to consider and investigate these proposals.

Representation ID: 34408

OBJECT Mr C J Young

Summary:

CONSULTATION PROCESS
My first, major concern is the way MY representatives in this area, MY PARISH COUNCIL, has been so insultingly treated by Norfolk County Council. The plans for mineral extraction should have been sent to them as is their right, and for them to have time to consult with the people they represent.
Instead they were left to find out about these important matters, concerning potentially major works which would change the rural face of our village, almost by chance it seems, and even with a brief extension to the consultation period, had only a few days to actually collate the opinions of the people such mineral extraction would most affect.
Shame on Norfolk County Council for allowing their officers to behave in this underhand way.
Norfolk County Councillors also represent those living in each area of Norfolk. I am surprised that they did not alert those they represent to the potential disaster unfolding on West Dereham for the next 50 to 100 years. This may be merely slip shod, or a deliberate ploy to protect vested interests.
As a villager of many years in West Dereham, I expect to be consulted about any major issue which will affect our life here.
Please treat the inhabitants of Norfolk with the respect they deserve!

Representation ID: 34267

OBJECT Mrs M A Bjerkestrand

Summary:

I am aware that this point has already been raised by others but I still feel that it needs to be made. From the information I have so far received, these proposals have been 2 years in the making so why is the consultation period only 6 weeks (or, as in the case of Tittleshall, 2 weeks?

Representation ID: 34048

OBJECT Longham parish council (Mrs G R Hubbard)

Summary:

The Parish Council is against the proposals and would criticize the time scale for comments to be made, as a public meeting would have been held if more time had been available.
Most of the residents of Longham knew nothing about these proposals and there is not enough time to call a meeting and gather views.

Representation ID: 34004

OBJECT Mr J E Blackwell

Summary:

I am writing to express my concern and objections to the above proposed two Mineral extraction sites NCC has identified.

Firstly, the council has not contacted directly all those people who may be effected; instead NCC have relied on the Tittleshall Parish Council & other councils to do this.

The first most people heard about these proposals was the 10th March
This was ahead of the next Tittleshall Parish council meeting today, 17th March.

So this consultation has been carried out very late by NCC within the time frame for people to write within the cut off date of 28th March.

Representation ID: 33894

COMMENT Mr Alan Horton

Summary:

However, the time allowed for consultation was so little as to suggest that serious examination and consideration was not expected, much less any proper research on the matter.

Meanwhile, clever as the web site is, those many households that share one email address can only make one submission by that route. The inconsistency between the preferred headings by post and internet is confusing; the online one hundred word limit excludes properly evidenced statements and could give brief whimsical comments undue eminence. Ministerial briefs may be summarised on the legendary 'one foolscap [A4] sheet', but no matter how skilled the junior planning officers may be, the hundred word abridged versions of well investigated postal submissions will not include all the relevant facts, and will lack nuances that are important to the writers. The website script says that all responses can be seen when the consultation is completed, but some are already displayed and those could deter, encourage or otherwise affect other peoples' efforts. Unfortunately, in this 21st century there are still people who are fearful of aggressive reaction when certain landowners, their scions or their squires are crossed.

As a matter of interest only, perhaps you or someone else could explain how the invitation to volunteer information on ethnic origins, age etc., can "make sure that we are reaching as many people as possible", especially as the response is not mandatory, and not related to citizenship or a time scale. Perhaps it serves some other purpose.

The 'drop in' concept seemed to be a good idea but senior officers and cabinet members must have been unaware of the history and intense feeling in the Norfolk countryside over these matters. The gathering in Dereham was chaotic and the CE of Breckland DC did well to produce a semblance of order. However, the NCC staff faced an impossible task, they were good at 'planning speak' but were ill informed on matters of practical concern such as permitted or good-practice distances of waste or mineral operations from homes and work places, or what are reasonable haulage distances for processing spoil. Although copious notes of questions were taken, we have received no answers.

It could have been more worthwhile had there been, say, aerial photographs of some illustrative developments, a presentation on water source protection by a senior officer or consultant. Convincing evidence of effective traffic routing might have been presented, or records of prompt orderly extraction and restoration could have been made available (if there are any to be found). Because in the UK we have less than an acre to each person , including barren and denuded areas, and in Norfolk there are about 1.79 acres each, it is important that land is restored to grade three or above for agricultural or horticultural use, rather than for ornamental ponds or grottos.

The lottery incentive to respond using the web site is a paltry patronizing diversion that detracts from the dignity of, and respect for, local government. Even our hard up eighteen-year-olds did not need that incentive to put their thoughts in order and become involved.

Representation ID: 33889

COMMENT Mr Alan Horton

Summary:

It is obvious that much skill and effort has been put into the exercise, the printed documents are beautifully presented, and other information is usefully compacted on disc.

Representation ID: 33857

OBJECT Longham parish council (Mrs G R Hubbard)

Summary:

Most of the residents of Longham knew nothing about these proposals and there is not enough time to call a meeting and gather views.

Representation ID: 33807

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Duffell and 1 other

Summary:

[MIN 93]
We would be grateful if you could confirm in writing when and how we should have been informed of our inclusion in the report , 'Issues and Options', as a potential site, as we only found out by chance when it was a "fait accompli". Since we had not been informed how were we supposed to object? What sort of consultation is it?

Representation ID: 33265

OBJECT Ms S Lane

Summary:

1. This community found out about the consultation by chance. I am aware that you used the Parish Council as your communicators but that was a poor decision for the following reasons: as you know, their meetings do not happen often enough to respond quickly to situations of this kind; their members may well have a vested interest in discussions being held (as was the case in Tittleshall); they may have to call further meetings for a variety of reasons; they are volunteers who, like the rest of us, may find the sort of information included in your consultation document unwieldy and slow to digest. In my opinion, the consultation process was in breech of the rules.
2. The consultation document was very difficult to get hold of.
3. I consider myself to be fairly computer-literate, but your website in general is too complex for the general public. In addition, your system of replying to the consultation document in sections is very off-putting and time consuming.

Representation ID: 33118

OBJECT Mrs M Harne

Summary:

I was perturbed about how little notice was given to the public about this matter (Drop in Session at Breckland Council on 17th March 2008)

Representation ID: 33108

OBJECT Mr Keith Nunn

Summary:

MIN 38
Please pass this note on to the relevant authority I find your response site confusing and onerous.

Representation ID: 31584

OBJECT Mrs P J Openshaw

Summary:

OBJECTION
We have filled in the boxes of accompanying protest form but know it is a complete waste of time and paper. This is not only my opinion but that of most of my neighbours. We know it is a foregone conclusion because power and money will override all protests and again we will see another piece of precious countryside sold to the highest bidder regardless of environmental impact.
My relatives died on foreign lands or came back shell shocked from their horrific experiences. They thought they were protecting our soil but, as it has always been since the beginning of British history, the wealthy and powerful few will oppress the poor majority.

Representation ID: 31014

OBJECT Mrs M P Burton

Summary:

As residents we were not even advised of the plans. Surely leaflets, letters etc should have been sent to every potential affected household. Why should such a big happening in our area be so 'hush-hush'?

Representation ID: 30831

OBJECT Mr Alan Horton

Summary:

I protest that: despite the great skill and effort obviously put into stage one and stage two of the minerals and waste development planning exercise it is massively inadequate. In stage one, people outside a selected group were unaware of the opportunity to make submissions. Now in stage two the time allowed is totally insufficient to read the documents and make a properly considered and evidenced response. There are discrepancies between the printed papers and the web site system. For example MIN 100 Mileham, Point Farm, in the Minerals Site Allocations Document, is listed in the contents as North Elmham by the web site system, and in fact it is part of Beeston CP. MIN 61 has no estimated reserve in the Allocations but it has plenty in the Evidence Base. It is written that comments will be published 'following this consultation' but some are already broadcast. There are seven headings on the Response Forms but only three or four in the on-line system. Above all and to great dismay, the limit of 100 words per section denies reasoned objections, support or comment. With the best will in the world, a summary by officers is prone to misinterpretation, error or prejudice and whatever their ability the words allowance is too restricted to say what is necessary. The 'drop-in' meeting in Dereham was chaotic there was little relevant information to be had and no council representative had knowledge of the fundamental geology. Promised responses to queries have not been received. No doubt offices and members are now aware of the distress and anger expressed at public meetings and know that 'planning blight' is already taking effect. To limit the damage and help restore a modicum of confidence in our local government I suggest that a substantial extension to the time limit is promulgated via all local radio stations and press, and by personal communication with all existing correspondents. That action could be reinforced by seeking suggestions on the procedure for stage three

Representation ID: 30787

OBJECT Ms B Ashley

Summary:

The public consultation was kept very quiet until there was an article in the EDP newspaper, which implies that NCC were hoping to proceed without consulting local people properly. I attended the fiasco on 17 March 2008 at Breckland Council Offices where the staff from the Minerals Dept at NCC were completely overwhelmed by the numbers of people who attended and were unable to talk to people or groups individually.

Representation ID: 30542

OBJECT Mr Derek Ashley

Summary:

Besides all the issues of pollution and the environment is the anger and frustration of this rural community who by chance have discovered that they may have forced upon them a mineral extraction plant. It is disgraceful for any County council and its employees who are paid through the public purse to try and put through such plans without any public consultation from the time of the initial applications. The unbelievable debacle witnessed at Breckland council offices during an advertised opportunity to meet and discuss each site with members of staff from the NCC minerals department, was an example of this county councils lack of ability to embrace openness, transparency and integrity. There appeared to be no leadership during the meeting, both the NCC delegates and the public sat in silence as no one understood the procedures. I witnessed members of the public becoming deeply upset and in one case a lady in near tears trying to get answers from an individual member of the NCC. Surely a facilitator should have managed the whole affair or is it the manner in which Norfolk County Council and Breckland conducts its public consultations?
I feel that the "standards" committee should actually examine the conduct of the NCC and in particular how no advance notice was given to local communities regarding the proposed mineral extraction and waste management sites which would have enabled them to conduct proper and through research, allowing for their views and concerns to be expressed in a more democratic manner.

Representation ID: 30315

OBJECT Mr Derek Ashley

Summary:

Besides all the issues of pollution and the environment is the anger and frustration of this rural community who by chance have discovered that they may have forced upon them a mineral extraction plant. It is disgraceful for any County council and its employees who are paid through the public purse to try and put through such plans without any public consultation from the time of the initial applications. The unbelievable debacle witnessed at Breckland council offices during an advertised opportunity to meet and discuss each site with members of staff from the NCC minerals department, was an example of this county councils lack of ability to embrace openness, transparency and integrity. There appeared to be no leadership during the meeting, both the NCC delegates and the public sat in silence as no one understood the procedures. I witnessed members of the public becoming deeply upset and in one case a lady in near tears trying to get answers from an individual member of the NCC. Surely a facilitator should have managed the whole affair or is it the manner in which Norfolk County Council and Breckland conducts its public consultations?
I feel that the "standards" committee should actually examine the conduct of the NCC and in particular how no advance notice was given to local communities regarding the proposed mineral extraction and waste management sites which would have enabled them to conduct proper and through research, allowing for their views and concerns to be expressed in a more democratic manner.

Representation ID: 29877

COMMENT National Grid plc (Mr Les Morris)

Summary:

The Energy White Paper makes clear that UK energy systems will undergo a significant change over the
next 20 years. To meet the goals of the white paper it will be necessary to revise and update much of the
UK's energy infrastructure during this period. There will be a requirement for;
 An expansion of national infrastructure (e.g. overhead power lines, underground cables, extending
substations, new gas pipelines and associated installations).
 New forms of infrastructure (e.g. smaller scale distributed generation, gas storage sites).
Our gas and electricity infrastructure is sited across the country and many stakeholders and communities
have an interest in our activities. We believe our long-term success is based on having a constructive and
sustainable relationship with our stakeholders. Our transmission pipelines and overhead lines were
originally routed in consultation with local planning authorities and designed to avoid major development
areas but since installation much development may have taken place near our routes.
In Annex E E3 of Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12 - 'Local Development Frameworks' National Grid
is listed as one of the 'other consultees', which Local Planning Authorities should also consider the need
to consult during the preparation of local development documents.
We therefore wish to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of Development Plan
Documents (DPDs) which may affect our assets including policies and plans relating to the following
issues;
 Any policies relating to overhead transmission lines, underground cables or gas pipeline installations
 Site specific allocations/land use policies affecting sites crossed by overhead lines, underground
cables or gas transmission pipelines
 Land use policies/development proposed adjacent to existing high voltage electricity substation sites
and gas above ground installations
 Any policies relating to the diverting or undergrounding of overhead transmission lines
 Other policies relating to infrastructure or utility provision
 Policies relating to development in the countryside
 Landscape policies
 Waste and mineral plans
In addition, we also want to be consulted by developers and local authorities on planning applications,
which may affect our assets and are happy to provide pre-application advice. Our aim in this is to ensure
that the safe and secure transportation of electricity and gas is not compromised.

Gas Distribution
National Grid Gas Distribution owns and operates the local gas distribution network in Norfolk County
Council area. If you require site specific advice relating to our local gas distribution network then
information should be sought from:
Plant Protection Team
National Grid Gas
Lakeside House
The Lakes
Bedford Road
Northampton
NN4 7SN

National Grid is happy to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning our networks. If we can
be of any assistance to you in providing informal comments in confidence during your policy
development, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please remember to consult National Grid on any
Development Plan Document (DPD) or site-specific proposals that could affect our infrastructure. We
would be grateful if you could add our details shown below to your consultation database;
National Grid
Land & Development Stakeholder and Policy Manager
Land & Development Team
National Grid House
Warwick Technology Park
Gallows Hill
Warwick
CV34 6DA

Representation ID: 29858

OBJECT Mr Ken Bayliss represented by Mr Ken Bayliss

Summary:

MIN41
In addition I have concerns about the communications and allowed time for responses to this planning process. In my view, the process of communicating potentially major events should be reviewed and any consultative process given sufficient time to be effective, i.e. in this instant, 4 to 6 months minimum.

Representation ID: 28888

OBJECT Mrs R Hepworth

Summary:

MIN33
It is a matter of very grave concern that we were not notified earlier of these proposals. I learned of them little more than 24 hours ago, and most people in the village are in the same boat.

Representation ID: 28776

OBJECT Miss Sheralyn Smith

Summary:

CONSULTATION PROCESS
I am saddened by the fact that the developers did not consult any residents regarding the proposed application. This indicates a considerable lack of awareness and indeed interest of the impact the development would have on my family and other residents in the area. I would ask that the Committee takes the representations of local people very seriously when considering and refusing this application.

Representation ID: 28335

OBJECT Mr Kenneth Rickard

Summary:

MIN 32
I am shocked that I should only find out about the proposal development through a neighbour at a late stage, I wonder how many other people will have lost the opportunity to respond.

Representation ID: 28118

OBJECT Mr Kenneth Rickard

Summary:

MIN33
I am shocked that I should only find out about the proposal development through a neighbour at a late stage, I wonder how many other people will have lost the opportunity to respond.

Representation ID: 25965

OBJECT Mr Christopher Hassell

Summary:

I have found the on line consultation difficult to use and cumbersome. In order that local democracy can function properly it needs to be easy for individuals to make their concerns known so I request your help, please.

Representation ID: 25592

OBJECT Mr Tony Dobbin and 2 others

Summary:

On the consultation process, it must be said that the initial time allowed was far too short and not surprisingly the period was extended. However, this does call into question the way in which the whole process is planned and managed. Much of the information obtained for village meetings had to be downloaded from the Internet. This does mean that those without Internet access or were unable to attend the village meeting, were least aware or informed about the proposals and the consultation.
After a brief look at the proposal documents made available as part of the consultation process, they appear short on specifics and detail. On major issues and concerns there are only vague assurances.
As far as we are aware, there has been no representative from the county or anyone else attend or offer to attend meetings in Bridgham.

Representation ID: 25255

COMMENT A G Hall

Summary:

RE MIN 42
I therefore formally request that:
My name be added to all files and data bases for the automatic circulation of any matters referring to the progress and review to the progress and review of the report.
I am to be informed of and invited to any public or restricted meeting that concerns MIN42 matters or includes MIN42 in the decision making process.

Representation ID: 25253

OBJECT A G Hall

Summary:

CONSULTATION PROCESS
Having been away for over four weeks on a business and pleasure visit to the USA, I am surprised that such a weighty document had been presented on the public domain with such a short review period before the closure of any objections or counter-proposals.
Please accept this letter as my blanket objection to the contents of the report in general, and any general planning approvals implicit in it; with particular reference to the area covered by MIN42, land between Church Farm and Pott Row.
Such a comprehensive report will, I am sure, will be receiving numerous objections to the overall and detailed contents, and there will, I am sure, be a substantial round of consultations and public meetings to fully explore and resolve the detail proposals contained in the report.
Inappropriate application of Government planning directives concerning the recovery of minerals.
The actions and proposals contained in the referenced report, issued by Norfolk County Council, on the subject of mineral extractions, would seem to display a lack of understanding of the true requirements for the reasons for silica sand extraction.

Representation ID: 25023

OBJECT Mr. Stephen Horton

Summary:

(MIN 100)
When you print out a response form for "traditional consultation" there are 7 boxes with different headings. When you try and do the same thing online even this is different there are only four headings each limits you to just 100 words. Therefore any response be it by post or online will have to be reduced to four one hundred word sections and if we don't do this ourselves online you have the audacity to do it for us. This is not a consultation, this is totally unacceptable.

We have major planning issues to discuss and I have spent a considerable amount of time and effort preparing a well reasoned objection and want the decision makers to be aware of my concerns as anyone in a so called civilised democracy would expect. The website needs to be changed so comments of a sensible length can be included. If you look on the comments made by your own officers that pertain to each MIN and WAS location they themselves often exceed 100 words. The consultation period needs to be extended beyond the March 28th deadline and evidence provided that our unadulterated objections are read by the right people. I have lost faith in the consultation process.

Representation ID: 25000

OBJECT Mr M Pooley

Summary:

CONSULTATION PROCESS
I look forward to your reply and would like to know why we were not informed of these proposals.
I will be contacting the Minister for the Environment to ask why we in the village had not been informed of these proposals and hence only having a week to put in our objections.

Representation ID: 24999

OBJECT Mr M Pooley

Summary:

CONSULTATION PROCESS
I look forward to your reply and would like to know why we were not informed of these proposals.
I will be contacting the Minister for the Environment to ask why we in the village had not been informed of these proposals and hence only having a week to put in our objections.

Representation ID: 24479

OBJECT Pentney parish council (Mr R G Pannell)

Summary:

CONSULTATION PROCESS
The majority of parishioners in Pentney [MIN93], and probably many other Parishes, feel totally let down when documents that have obviously taken a considerable time to collate with a profound vision of 2021 has apparently taken little regard for the here and now. The span of the consultation period being only 6 weeks from receipt, when the projects planned could cover the next 12-13 years, is woefully inadequate, and has little regard for human sensitivities.

Representation ID: 24076

OBJECT Hempstead parish council (Mrs E M Buxton)

Summary:

CONSULTATION PROCESS
We are bound to record that we have been handicapped by the six week period of time allowed for consultation which we regard as unreasonably brief.

Representation ID: 23551

OBJECT Mr J M Ford

Summary:

NCC failure to communicate
Entirely due to the inefficiency and failure of Norfolk County Council in communicating with the public, I have only recently been made aware of this allocation and the existence of the documents referred to in this heading and have not yet had any opportunity to acquire and study them. I have therefore been deprived of the opportunity to comment on their content prior to the closing date of 28th March 2008.

Representation ID: 22598

OBJECT Bintree, Billingford, North Elmham & Twyford Parish Councils Joint Meeting (Mr Chris Langford)

Summary:

BREVITY OF CONSULTATION
The combined parish council of Bintree, Billingford, North Elmham and the Parish Meeting of Twyford have taken the unusual step of convening a joint meeting to express the deep concerns of our parishioners over NMWDF strategy.
The brevity of the consultation period has added to our parishioners level of uncertainty and confidence in the consultations process.

Representation ID: 22276

OBJECT J E & B Foster

Summary:

CONSULTATION PROCESS
Contrary to the asser[tion] in your flyer that 'the other day' (?) I had received an information pack referring to quarries and landfill in this area. I was never delivered of the same and [...] therefore unable to complete the said form. I am now eighty. I am cynical enough to believe that although we, the public, are consulted as a matter of form, we will still be ignored and that these proposals will be proceeded with regardless.
My wife is in total agreement with ALL the points I have made and she will also sign this objection.

Representation ID: 22273

OBJECT J E & B Foster

Summary:

DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
I trust that the outcome will show that the will of the people will prevail and that democracy is not yet dead. Our country is govern[ed] by consent and not govern[ed] by decree.

Representation ID: 22032

OBJECT Mr T Robertson

Summary:

My protest is that you have made the process of consultation so difficult for the people who have no access to the internet.

Representation ID: 21854

OBJECT Mr Alan Horton

Summary:

CONSULTATION PROCESS
The enclosed submission is made now to comply with the time constraints, without prejudice to further enquiry and communication.
It is appreciated that much demanding and extensive effort has been put into this exercise at all levels, the printed papers and electronic displays are excellent.
I have sat-in on several village meetings where the parishioners are 'up in arms' and feel that many in the 'wider community' are easily irritated by the use of technical phrases and 'planning speak'. In retrospect stage-one had too little exposure, for example, in addition to our home patch we have a few hectares of uncultivated amenity land in the county yet knew nothing of the mineral and waste planning work in hand, so when it was revealed in the local press it came as a shock and brought to the fore those historical failures to protect the quiescent from the actively avaricious in this sphere. The Launditch Hundred has suffered greatly from 'adverse impact' and needs a break to reset and recover.
I have not read all the documentation yet but it seems that Crown Estate marine aggregates, licences and reserves should be taken into account here as they are in Hampshire. Similarly, some counties, e.g. Lancashire have commissioned geological surveys such reports give confidence that 'The County' has the necessary knowledge to act of its own volition and is not beholden to commercial interests.
I hope to be able to comment on other proposals, and look forward with interest to the next stage.

Representation ID: 19788

OBJECT E W Cutter

Summary:

Does anyone actually read these forms and list the many varied objections? I do object, most strongly, but feel defeated by the big money interests, before I even put pen to paper. (MIN 61, MIN66, MIN23, MIN67, MIN100, MIN68)

Representation ID: 19625

OBJECT Ms P Tipene

Summary:

Why can we not get proper access to the objection forms on your website? Everyone I know has trouble accessing the site. Is this done on purpose to stop us objecting?

Representation ID: 19594

OBJECT Mr R Carruthers

Summary:

I live just in front of Fritton woods on New Road, Fritton so I am surprised no-one has informed me of this proposal either from the County Council or Parish Council.
Please advise how I can best keep up to date with these worrying developments.

Representation ID: 18173

OBJECT Mr & Mrs R & B Ravencroft and 1 other

Summary:

We object to the short space of time given to make our feelings known.

Representation ID: 17721

OBJECT Mr Philip Pollard

Summary:

MIN 32 & MIN 33
I asked Mr Davenport that if Frimstones had no interest in MIN 32 why did he report it, he replied that it was the Council instruction to report where minerals are, and as Frimstones knew that there was a seem of sand running through MIN 32 AND 33 they reported it. The Council have asked the wrong question. You cannot expect consultation when no one knows what the extent of the development is likely to be. I suggest that MIN 33 is withdrawn until it is established where the gravel is and where the sand is so that the part that refers to sand alone is removed. Until this is done how can we be expected to comment?

Representation ID: 17613

OBJECT Mrs Mandy Smith

Summary:

MIN 58, MIN 18 & WAS 39
I am saddened by the fact that the developers did not consult any residents regarding the proposed application. This indicates a considerable lack of awareness and indeed interest of the impact the development would have on my family and other residents in the area. I would ask that the committee takes the representations of local people very seriously when considering and refusing this application.

Representation ID: 17155

OBJECT Mr William Richard Coulton

Summary:

There is not enough room. Badly designed form.
Inadequate time for proper consultation.

Representation ID: 17090

OBJECT Mr John Smith

Summary:

CONSULTATION PROCESS
I am saddened by the fact that the developers did not consult any residents regarding the proposed application. This indicates a considerable lack of awareness and indeed interest of the impact the development would have on my family and other residents in the area. I would ask that the committee takes the representations of local people very seriously when considering and refusing this application. (MIN 58, MIN 18, WAS 39)

Representation ID: 16914

OBJECT Ms Clare Le Messurier

Summary:

(MIN 60)
Although I have read the reports, I do not feel I know sufficient to comment other than to say it would have been helpful to have had a summary of the main points.

Representation ID: 16175

COMMENT Harling parish council (Mr Philip Edge)

Summary:

(MIN 49)
The above are the issues identified at this Council's meeting, which was reassured to know that other bodies, with a more specialised and detailed knowledge of them, are being consulted and so will be able to speak about them with a greater level of expertise and authority.

Representation ID: 15858

COMMENT Norfolk & Norwich Archaeological Society (Mr Roger Bellinger)

Summary:

I would like to register an interest on behalf of the Norfolk & Norwich Archaeological Society. We have a general interest in the proposals and wsih to ensure the protection of archaeological sites, both scheduled and unscheduled.
Please will you keep us informed.

Representation ID: 15640

OBJECT Mr R Dunn

Summary:

[MIN 38] - EVIDENCE BASE
Firstly I have an issue that this has not been widely and correctly publicised in the interests of the residents and other interest parties which leads me to believe [in my opinion] the Norfolk County Council are trying to railroad this issue through and have no interest in residents and the electorate.

Representation ID: 14740

OBJECT Mr & Mrs J A Raines and 1 other

Summary:

MIN 97
I feel these forms are somewhat confusing and may deter people from responding.

Representation ID: 11803

OBJECT Mr Ian Maunders

Summary:

MIN70
I am very concerned that this proposal has not been circulated to local residents by Norfolk County Council - the impression is that is has been "kept quiet" - but why?
I am somewhat confused too, as only recently we were alerted to the proposal submitted by Pelham Homes for a huge development in South Wymondham, which includes the same area of land as the mineral extraction plan.

Representation ID: 11439

OBJECT Helen Thomas-Jones

Summary:

EVIDENCE FOR CHOICE OF SITE
On what basis was this site chosen? It would appear from the evidence provided by 'objectors' to the site that research by NCC on any 'real' level was not carried out!

Representation ID: 10737

OBJECT Mr M Synge

Summary:

Consultation process
The consultation period is very short and has not been well publicised by NCC. The appraisal criteria are quite good with an emphasis on sustainable development and environmental climate change issues. This site is quite inappropriate for development under these criteria especially, and amenity and landscape criteria too. I strongly object to this proposal.

Representation ID: 7354

OBJECT Mr & Mrs D & T Baldwin

Summary:

I am writing as a very concerned mother and villager who has just found out about these proposals.

Why have residents in our Village (and other affected Villages) not been directly informed? Many neighbours I have spoken to including myself have only just found out about these proposals and I think it is disgusting that this matter which will affect our lives so greatly has been kept quiet about.

Representation ID: 6383

OBJECT Mr Robert Habermann

Summary:

I am a member of several groups who use the area regularly and I have been unable to contact them in time to let them know what is threatened. I am confident that if they had discovered the proposals for MIN 50 and MIN 60, they would also have made very strong representation to you.

Representation ID: 5146

OBJECT GO-East (Mr Steve Bateman)

Summary:

In relation to the Minerals Site Allocation DPD you do not show Mineral Safeguarded Areas (MSAs) and Mineral Consultation Areas (MCAs) in the 'Site Allocation Issues & Options' document. Reference to the Core Strategy Preferred Options document would tend to suggest that this will be undertaken at the Submission stage. You will need to ensure that MSAs and MCAS are shown as soon as possible as an aid to public consultation. We would question whether possibly leaving this to the Submission stage will meet the objectives of 'front-loading'.

Representation ID: 3154

OBJECT Ms J Jones

Summary:

Plans are lacking in detail for residents to make totally informed decisions. Plans do not provide us with information on how road networks would work, how properties would be affected, how pollution would be tackled, timescales involved, what happens to sites once they have been mined etc etc.
All in all, I am very disappointed with the very high-handed presentation of proposals.
Equally disappointing has been the Council's disregard for providing public information forums at times convenient to residents and specific to individual localities. The one public forum that I was able to attend, convened at Breckland HQ was abominably organised and provided no real information of value to residents of specific localities such as my own.
Finally, but not least, I would like to complain very loudly about the length of this consultation period. This is a very serious issue to residents of the area and allowing us the 3 - 4 weeks or so, consultation period is disgraceful and not respectful at all of the issues that are presented to members of the local, tax-paying community.

Representation ID: 3141

OBJECT Ms J Jones

Summary:

Plans are lacking in detail for residents to make totally informed decisions. Plans do not provide us with information on how road networks would work, how properties would be affected, how pollution would be tackled, timescales involved, what happens to sites once they have been mined etc.
All in all, I am very disappointed with the very high-handed presentation of proposals.
Equally disappointing has been the Council's disregard for providing public information forums at times convenient to residents and specific to individual localities. The one public forum that I was able to attend, convened at Breckland HQ was abominably organised and provided no real information of value to residents of specific localities such as my own.
Finally, but not least, I would like to complain very loudly about the length of this consultation period. This is a very serious issue to residents of the area and allowing us the 3 - 4 weeks or so, consultation period is disgraceful and not respectful at all of the issues that are presented to members of the local, tax-paying community.

Representation ID: 939

OBJECT Mr P Weight

Summary:

[MIN 99]
I came across these proposals completely by accident via a conversation in a pub! As a resident of East Harling and a faithful council tax payer, why haven't I or indeed anyone else in the area been informed about them? Having only moved in a year ago, nothing about these proposals showed up in my local 'searches' but yet these proposals must have been known at NCC for some considerable time! It would appear very underhand - NCC are trying to sneak these proposals in without anyone being aware until it is too late!

Representation ID: 935

OBJECT Mr P Weight

Summary:

[MIN 49]
I only came upon this via a 'perchance' conversation with someone in a pub. Why as a resident of East Harling and a council tax payer, have I and indeed anyone else in the area been formerly notified of these outrageous proposals or been informed about the 'consultation' period? It would appear very much that NCC are typically trying to sneak these proposals in without anyone knowing anything about it until it is too late - this is absolutely disgraceful !