![]() |
||||||||
|
Home Local News Parliament Articles Speeches Richard Media South Norfolk Expenses Contact
| MP gives County Council
his views on proposed quarry at Marlingford |
![]() |
||||||
|
South Norfolk MP Richard Bacon has written to Mr Nick Johnson, Planning Services Manager at Norfolk County Council, with his views on the Council's proposals for a 50-acre gravel extraction quarry near Marlingford. Mr Bacon was responding to the Council's call for public responses on its plans for Mineral extraction and Waste disposal in Norfolk. |
|||||||
|
The Norfolk County Council Mineral |
||||||||
|
Mr Bacon said: “I have written to Mr Johnson with my thoughts on the County Council's proposals for a gravel quarry at Marlingford. “If local people miss the 11 December deadline and these proposals are still taken forward, then residents will have a further opportunity to put their views to any public inquiry that is established to look at these proposals in greater detail”.
10 December2009
Mr Nick Johnson
10 December 2009
Dear Mr Johnson
I am writing in
regard to the public consultation on Norfolk County Council’s
Mineral and Waste Development Framework (NMWDF) and in particular
the proposal for a sand and gravel extraction plant on land to the
North of Bawburgh Road, Marlingford in my constituency, reference
MIN 54, and also a landfill for inert waste on the same site,
reference WAS 71.
South Norfolk Local
Plan policies: The proposed quarry would inevitably affect an area which
the South Norfolk Local Plan (SNLP), under policy ENV13, identifies
as being of regional and local nature conservation interest and
geological/geomorphological value. Policy ENV13 states that any
development which is likely to adversely affect any local nature
reserve, site of importance for nature conservation or a regionally
important geological or geomorphological site will not be permitted
unless there are material planning considerations of sufficient
importance to outweigh the need to safeguard the nature conservation
interest of the site, or its geological or geomorphological value.
I believe that proposals MIN 54 and WAS 71 will be in clear
violation of policy ENV13 as, given the large number of sites under
consideration across Norfolk, no material planning considerations of
sufficient importance exist in this case.
Highways:
A principal concern of local residents is that a quarry would
require a very large number of heavy goods vehicles to use local
roads to and from the quarry site. This would present considerable
danger to pedestrians, including those walking their dogs, and other
road users. In the Winter months, HGVs would deposit large
quantities of mud on the roads. It is clear that the narrow rural
roads around the proposed site are unsuitable for the very high
volume of traffic which would be required.
Conservation and
Heritage:
The Old Hall, a Grade II listed building, sits within very close
proximity of the proposed site. I have visited the Old Hall and I
am concerned that vibration from the proposed works could damage
this historic residence. These concerns are shared by English
Heritage, which believes that this property could be detrimentally
affected by these proposals.
Noise pollution:
I visited the site recently and was struck by beauty of the area and
the historic nature of nearby residences. The site sits towards the
top of the Yare Valley and local residents are concerned that the
quarry will cause considerable noise pollution in what is a
particularly tranquil area of the county. Given the tranquil state
of the area, the NMWDF’s proposals to site the noisiest works away
from the Southern end of the site seem unlikely to have much
effect.
Destruction of
Woodland and associated ground slippage: One of the woodlands nearby, Bluebell Wood, which is
in the grounds of the Old Hall, would be at risk of destruction
through dehydration, due to the effect on the immediately adjacent
water table if the quarry went ahead, with hundreds of thousands of
tonnes of material being removed. There would also be an associated
risk of ground slippage very near to a row of dwellings in the
village.
Flooding:
There are strong local concerns that pollutants from the quarry and
the landfill site would find their way into underground water
courses and into the River Yare. Local people are also concerned
that the excavation would allow water to be introduced to the flood
plain much more quickly than at present, increasing the flood risk
in the Yare Valley.
Local knowledge:
It is easy to dismiss local concerns as nimbyism, but granting
planning permission for infrastructure projects or housing without
due regard to superior local knowledge is dangerous. The situation
at Barford is a case in point. In that case, local people warned
that new houses built in Eastleigh Gardens, Barford would be in
danger of being flooded, yet local planning authorities dismissed
their concerns. Consequently, the subsequent owners of those houses
now find themselves inundated by raw sewage during heavy rainfall.
I am keen to see that this grave error of judgement is not repeated
elsewhere in Norfolk.
I would be very
grateful if you could take the above points into consideration when
taking forward the Norfolk Mineral and Waste Development Framework.
Yours sincerely
Richard Bacon MP
|
||||||||
| © Richard Bacon 2010 | ||||||||