(!) Please Note: This message from Alistair Beales (Borough Council):
"It is not my understanding that Sibelco have decided not to pursue MIN42 – their submissions support that allocation in the 2011 consultation and seek to change the procedure to favour all their ambitions. Far from allaying my concerns about the issues you mention, it has very much heightened them".
The council's latest document can be downloaded by clicking on the above heading or at the link below:
"It is not my understanding that Sibelco have decided not to pursue MIN42 – their submissions support that allocation in the 2011 consultation and seek to change the procedure to favour all their ambitions. Far from allaying my concerns about the issues you mention, it has very much heightened them".
The council's latest document can be downloaded by clicking on the above heading or at the link below:
MIN40 is discussed in more detail at
http://saveeastwinch.blogspot.com
Minerals Site Allocations: Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) Consultation (consultation ended: 11/12/2009)
click on this
scroll down again until you find firstly MIN 42 then MIN113 which is underneath it and click on that as well.
Minerals Site Allocations: Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) Consultation
Regards
Jon Large.
Hello Everyone
Well it's been some while since we have all had to make contact again but like me, I expect (or hope) that you will have received the latest round of 'consultation' information on MIN42 from NCC.
If you did object first time round and have not had their recent letter dates 13 June, then please ring Caroline Jeffery on 01603 222193 and ask for it to be sent to you please and let them know you are unhappy that you have not been updated.
We have until the 15th of August to respond and to lodge our objections.
Now, whilst MIN 42 in its entirety has been removed (for the time being at least) from this round of the equation, I have worked my way through the cumbersome documentation on their website and MIN 42 as we all suspected is by far permanently out of the woods yet - indeed if they have their way there will be no woods left!
I will be directing you to look at various websites and will also be aiming to have our website updated.
Like many of you will have in the past couple of years, I have now changed email addresses and can be contacted on karanmckerrowdean@titanmail.org.uk
If you have moved and no longer live in the area but still receive this email, then please let me know and perhaps I can add the new owner's details to my email details.
Similarly, if your circumstances have changed or some of you have moved on then I apologise for this intrusion but please reply and update me.
If you know your neighbours do not have email or have changed theirs, then please run off a copy of this email and let as many people know as possible. I am trying to avoid having to do a mail drop at this moment in time if we can.
I would like to direct you to http://norfolk.jdi-consult.net/ldf/
scroll down until you come to
Here you will see
that the original MIN 42 has now been broken up. This is due to the objection of the landowner Mr Timothy Flux who owns the 2 chunks which have been removed in other words the large field which was in at the bottom right south east corner ( old Golf Course Hill) and large section in the middle above Leziate Heath (now referred to as MIN113), thus cutting the original MIN42 in half.
You will see all their reasoning based on landscape, ecology, highways and accessibility, amenities, water, geodiversity and all other comments they have made.
However, importantly please note:
They seem to be maintaining that if they were to further exclude the north east chunk which is more' sensitive', this would still leave two large and viable areas namely along Leziate Drove and North of Chilver House lane.
Please also see:
Minerals Site Allocations: Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) Consultation scroll down to 7.5 MINs 42 and 113Here you will see that they see this as "a very good opportunity to create and link up further large areas of heathland" replacing the currently ecology.
Well I don't jnow about you but I chose to live amongst arable, undulating hills and fields not huge swathes of nothing but Heathlands, please tell them this.
The Gaywood Valley and rolling hill coming down from the Knights Hill roundabout is one of the few wooded hills in this part of Norfolk and the view is majestic.
Their plan is still (at some stage) to cut through the valley, destroying the woodlands and replacing it with heath.
- They are trying currently to figure out access routes to the area north of Chilver House Lane (and South of Cliffe-en-Howe).
- They are similarly trying to say that with improvements to the B1145 and Leziate Drove junction they would be able to access the area to the East adjacent to and south of the Phghtle and have also marked the drive/lane with black circles next to MIN113 and suggesting a continuation route marked with black triangles up The Brow of the Hill back to their processing plant.
Firstly, we have seen the effect that Mr Flux's objection had in removing his land from the equation.
The area they still propose to mine North of Chilver House Lane and South of Cliffe-en-Howe must belong to someone. It clearly runs through several people's land. I would like those people to make themselves known to me please and to voice your concerns very loudly with an outright objection to NCC demanding the removal of your land. Even if only 1 or 2 of you did this, this would break up the land even further and make access even more difficult.
If you know who currently owns any of this land then please let me know (including MIN113 where the horses are kept along gayton Road).
Further, all the people living along Chilver House Lane, Cliffe en Howe and Leziate Drove and along Gayton Road will be effected either by traffic and HGVs, noise, air pollution (PCBs which as mentioned in relation to the recent incinerator objections) are cancer carrying particles very well known in the silica extraction and processing industry (silicosis) e.g. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis36.pdf. The dangers to people living nearby to these sites are well documented and noted under H&SE and COSHE regulations.
It is absolutely vital that you all still voice your concerns and lodge your objections. Don't just say you don't want or like it, please be specific and stick to rebutting their points of arguement. Please write to Caroline Jeffery Principal Planning Officer, Environment dept., County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2UD, FAX her on 01603 223219, or lodge your letter online www.norfolk.gov.uk/nmwdf . Don't think this isn't going to happen, because it will if not now then in a few years unless we prevent this and stop it in its tracks.
Go through their list of 'reasonings' and word your letter to rebut their claims. Take photos and record rare plants, birds, wildlife, find out who owns what land and get them to object, tell them they have incorrectly referred to improvements on the B1146 instead of the B1145 and how busy this road is, what an accident black spot this and the Bawsey Dips are,what about saddleries and bridal paths - is this will effect your business in anyway tell them, tell them how whenever there is an accident on the A47 this is where the traffic is diverted to, if you live in ChilverHouse or Cliffe-en-howe throw everything you can at them repeating whatever you said last time round and adding more this time round (you can now see what evidence if any they are relying on). No mention is made of meteorological factors such as the valley forming a wind tunnel thus making the dangers of air pollution even more of a factor.
Thanks for reading and please do write. If you are able to come back to me to let me know you have done so that would be great.
Hope you are all keeping well, if you know of anyone who would like to join up to our group "ERASE" (Exploited Residents Against Silica Extraction) then please get them to contact me, unless of course they work for Sibelco (WBB) or NCC's mineral planning department, in which case they can read our website instead!
Kind regards
Karan
Hello all,
Ive had a couple of queries and thought it best to print and clarify:
Q1
If I could add a comment to this, in respect to registering objections. In my experience, beware of developing a standard letter if objection that all has to be added is a name and address: this is not a good idea, as a planning committee are often likely to bundle all similarly worded objections into one pile and class them all as "one objection" only.Aren't they saying that Min42 and MIN 113 are part of the 66 sites already considered unsuitable or unnecessary for allocation? So is any further action required or am I missing something?
Q2
You have probably seen this document but if not go to page 34 and at the conclusion of the piece it appears to me to say that the site will not be allocated. What do you think?
My Response:
That's right at this present moment in time on this round of planning applications, neither MIN42 nor MIN 113 in their original states have been considered appropriate for inclusion.
However, there is further clear argument that they will be reconsidering this as a revised further issue and option in other documentation that they will be trying again to access the site North of Chilver House Lane and on the south east side/Leziate Drove side but that they need to look at access via B1145/Leziate Drove and other issues etc first.
They made their decision not to include MIN42 (and MIN113 which has now appeared and wasn't previously included or indeed in existence) based on the document "Further Issues and Options". This time round, we are taking part in a new consultation called "Revised Further Issues and Options"...
When I asked our Councillor Janet Murphy whether MIN42/MIN 113 was definitely out of the woods now, her response was,
"I also asked specifically about MIN42 and that is not in the current acceptable sites. However, we are below the national targets that Norfolk has been set centrally for silica sand and I understand that the consultation will include a call for further suggestions for silica sand sites. I have been told that these may come as new sites but, in view of the very limited areas in which silica sand is found in the county, further submissions may include amended proposals/additional evidence as to suitability for sites that are not currently acceptable, so it will be important to keep an eye on this still".
And she's quite right to say we need to remain on our mettle because their letter states they are now consulting on "Revised Further Issues and Options", so we need to respond regarding their future plans on this now. This is a further submission with amended proposals/additional evidence .Hope that all makes sense.
Regards
Jon Large.
Hello everyone
It has been brought to my attention that MIN39 has also now reappeared with new boundaries and is back in the equation .
For those of you who are not familiar with where it is:
For those of you who are not familiar with where it is:
If you travel along East Winch Road with Ashwicken behind you, past Glosthorpe Manor, curve round to the right as if you were heading towards East Winch, the airfield or little post office its the huge fields on your left.
The people in Church Lane and particularly on the south side of it will be affected as will our Church (All Saints), the residents of Glosthorpe Manor and all those along Ashwicken Road will also. They intend turning it into yet another lake when they have finished. At THIS stage it is part of an accepted and allocated site based on their intention to iron out the problems they have highlighted and as a site for search and potential useage.
I already have a huge job on my hands with Min42 and now MIN113 so I am suggesting a sub group of you get together to look at their assessments and make sure you all object (thats everone of a reasonable understanding in your household so hopefully at least 2 letters per household +) basing your arguments on those they use in their assessments and anything else you think is relevant please. Do this via the same details I have shown on previous email.
I will find the paperwork such as the fact that there ARE recognised dangers to digging (and not just processing at the plant) for you to add in, anything else anyone has please share. Then we can all get together to discuss and I am hoping to contact our PC, borough Councillor Alistair Beales is already aware and on the case and our County Councillor Janet Murphy to ensure our objections to the 'revised' further options are well and truly known.
You will by now be aware that reduced but still very large sections of MIN 42 are still in for consideration if they can sort out access along Leziate Drove and Chilver House lane ends, so the next time this is all due in a few years time
if you don't lodge your objections NOW (particularly all you landowners), then your back garden will become a mine/quarry.
Please see again:
Site ref no.
MIN 39
Parish
LEZIATE and EAST WINCH
Location of site
Land at Wicken East, East Winch Road, Ashwicken, King’s Lynn
Submitted by
Sibelco Ltd
Proposed use/s
Mineral extraction (silica sand)
Estimated
reserves
Allocation / Area of Search
Area of Search
Size of site (ha)
57.2
Background information: There are no current mineral or waste planning permissions at this site. The site lies immediately to the east of an active pit with planning permission for silica sand extraction.
Landscape: The site comprises undulating arable land which slopes down to the Middleton Stop Drain, the site is subdivided by hedgerows and groups of trees, which form landscape features which would be lost be working the site. The site is identified as being moderately tranquil by the CPRE and is in an area of dark landscape on the county map. There may be views of the site from some upstairs windows of properties on Church Lane, and the site could impact on the setting of the listed Church of All Saints, although it may be possible to acceptably screen this. Restoration is likely to be to a mix of open water and woodland.
Ecology: Providing that the Rookery woodland, and the boundary hedgerows and trees are safeguarded with a suitable buffer then the ecological impacts could be minimised. It would be necessary to carry out surveys for protected species and nesting birds prior to development and suitable mitigation put in place. A high quality restoration scheme with blocks of woodland and some open water in areas closer to the valley floor could provide greater biodiversity on the site and an ecological gain in the long term.
Highways: There are no acceptable HGV routes direct from the site to the A47 and the junctions to the A47 would require assessment to identify any Capacity/safety impacts. However if the material was transported by conveyor to the existing Leziate processing site, the existing road and rail links could be used.
Amenity: Concerns have been made regarding the impacts of noise, dust and vibration on nearby properties; this would need to be assessed in any application and suitable mitigation put in place.
Water resources/quality: Part of the site is within Flood Risk zone 3 and will require a Flood Risk Assessment to identify any potential adverse impacts. As mineral extraction on site will probably require dewatering any developer will need to identify any abstraction points/wells that will be affected by a drop in groundwater levels and mitigate/compensate the owners of these abstraction points. A Hydrogeological Risk Assessment (HRA) will be required to identify any impacts on nearby waterbodies/ groundwater resources and suitable mitigation including the impacts on groundwater dependent protected sites such as East Winch Common SSSI.
Geodiversity: This site may contain potential geodiversity features of local significance. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational phases and ideally as part of any restoration scheme.
Other comments: Part of this site is crossed by a high pressure gas transmission pipeline which would require a suitable standoff zone surrounding it and additional works to protect the stability of the pipeline, by for example constructing suitable crossing points for heavy plant; or diversion at the developer’s expense and National Grid’s agreement. The site is also crossed by powerlines and the National Grid have indicated that a statutory clearance area will be required.
Conclusion: This site is considered to be suitable for allocation as an area of search. Further modification and amendment to the site proposal is likely to be necessary as part of any future application; however it is felt that the site is acceptable in principle subject to conditions including:
An approved scheme of working and restoration which addressed landscape, ecology, geodiversity issues.
A noise and dust assessment which identified any potential impacts and appropriate mitigation to address these.
• A Hydrogeological Risk Assessment which identified any potential impacts to groundwater and appropriate mitigation to address these.
• A routing agreement to transport material by conveyor or internal haul route to the existing processing works.
• An agreement with the distribution network operator and the mineral operator on safeguarding the gas transmission pipeline and any powerlines affected.
Site allocated.
No comments:
Post a Comment