The Planning Authority have given us just 14 days to object to the revised proposals for the new quarry. A short period of time considering many people, including Councillors, are on Holiday and the Marlpit is not issued this month. Many Residents have lost the right to object or to approve of the scheme.

This new proposal is a scaled down version of the original scheme, which was refused Planning Consent earlier this year. Many of us consider that the proposal is:

Out of scale. It is about one and a quarter times the size of Wroxham Broad.

No guarantee can be given that the site will never be used as an infill site. The Site is more valuable as infill than a gravel pit.

If consent is given for the smaller scheme, it will be nearly impossible for the Planning Authority to refuse a future application to extend the excavation.

The site is within one and a half miles of Frettenham, Belaugh, Horstead and Coltishall where the noise of Mechanical Diggers, the grading and washing machines, the Ready Mix Plant and the bleeping of reversing lorries and plant will clearly be heard. These areas will also be affected by airborne dirt and dust. Not a good omen for the people negotiating to purchase or purchasing one of the new houses on the adjacent White Woman Estate.

An excavation 7 meters deep will drain the surrounding soil of moisture. Some farms spray their crops with water. There will be

a conflict of interests.

I would be pleased to hear from any reader what type of agriculture is carried out on a thin skin of vegetable soil at the bottom of a 7 meter hole (this is about 24 feet deep) when the excavation is complete and reinstated. If it is not to be used as an infill site our Children and Grandchildren would no doubt find it an ideal site for Pop Concerts (legal or otherwise) and perhaps Motocross or motor bike scrambles.

The existing B1150 will need up grading or constant maintenance if it is to withstand the extra heavy traffic (at Public Expense?). Is the ring road of adequate size? Or is this the reason why the new and extensive road works have recently been proposed?

No information is given on the size of the 76 vehicles, which will be using the site. Does this figure include traffic associated with the Ready Mix plant and Contractors collecting Aggregate? How will this number be enforced if consent is given? I suspect this figure is inadequate bearing in mind the amount of Materials that are to be moved.

Coltishall Bridge is not wide enough to carry two way lorry traffic. The adjacent acute bend is difficult to negotiate with large vehicles if both sides of the road are not to be used.

This scheme will be of great financial benefit to the few and to the detriment of the Environment and the many living and working in this Area.

I have today received notification from the Norfolk County Council that Tarmac Limited are Appealing against the refusal for Planning Consent for their original and larger scheme. I wonder who will win? Will anyone take notice of Local opinion? Will the big guns get their way?

J H Foreman

Please Write

Just when we had let out a sigh of relief at the refusal for planning permission for Tarmac to extract sand and gravel in Horstead they are back again with a revised proposal, of which I feel everybody should be advised. We have asked the Parish Council to hold another public meeting to make it easier for the parishes to see what is involved, but in the meantime the Marlpit seemed an excellent way forward!

Tarmac have appealed against the original refusal, and it would seem that the hearing into this will be in March next year. Everyone who wrote about the first proposal will have had a letter to this effect and the chance to add further comments, but all original comments will be passed to the Inspector. Tarmac have indicated that if their new proposal is adopted, they will then drop this appeal.

The new proposal is somewhat smaller, 54.3 hectares instead of 106, over 15 years instead of 20, and extracting 200,000 tonnes per year instead of 400,000 (3.06 million tonnes of sand and gravel in total ). This would be 76 lorry movements per day (38 in and out ), about 4 in and 4 out per hour. These figures are from a summary prepared by Norfolk County Council.

Although we could say that this is an improvement on the original (although personally I don't ), if we consider it as a totally new idea, it is still alarming and not at all what we want in Horstead. The important thing at this stage is that it is deemed to be a new proposal, and therefore any letters sent last time are now void - if you object you MUST make a new representation. Stanninghall will still be overwhelmed by the concrete plant, and road users, holidaymakers and local residents will still have to cope with this totally alien blot on the landscape.

The letter which the original respondents received asked for comments with 14 days - the County Council have advised me

that on a project of this scale they will continue to accept representations until Committee (possibly 14th November or 19th December) so if you forgot or thought that your previous comments applied - you still have time! Since the other Tarmac scheme we have had a further two gravel extractions passed in Horstead, for Frimstone and Longwater. Together with the Grange Farm one at Spixworth, which is no distance away, we already have a ridiculous amount of working in our area - to say nothing of the Tip still operating. This would seem to be contrary to the government's MIN 12 which does not allow for over-saturation of development in one area. We already have this now.

One last point, which would perhaps encourage a few more people to write and object - in October it is envisaged that the Local Mineral Plan Review ( which many of you again objected to the changes proposed therein) will be finalised and the Investigative Area 73 to the North of Frettenham Road, will be extended and amalgamated with IA 74, the proposed Tarmac site, to become a new Investigative Area 73. Tarmac have already said several times that they looked at the old site 73 for their extraction, but the access was bad and they gave up in favour of the one they are presently pursuing. Once, of course, they have permission for the proposed site, access will be much easier and they may pursue an extension as they have on many of their previous sites. This is worth considering.

Sorry - have gone on for too long - the present new proposal is C/5/2003/5004 Horstead Trafford Estate Proposed sand and gravel extraction ( amended proposal ) Tarmac Limited - and the address is Planning and Transportation Department, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich NR1 2SG - attention Mr R Cranthorne.

Please - if you still object, write again - if you didn't bother last time and feel we are being submerged with these proposals, write for the first time. A few lines will do, and you all count.

Many thanks.

Christine Benton, Beverley Farm, Horstead

Lobby!!

I with all the other villagers all breathed a sigh of relief when Tarmac’s original proposal was turned down. Now it seems the threat has returned. My original objections still stand and all the facts that failed the original application in both the District and County hearings also still stand.

The road is not suitable for the proposed amount of traffic, reduced or not. The junction would be quite dangerous, even with the proposed alterations. There is no reference to the amount of additional lorry traffic that would be travelling through the village. It is widely known the B1150 is a busy enough road as it is now.

Ecologically the hedgerows, wild life and trees in the area and along the road, that have taken years to get established, which are already being destroyed by the quieter industry of house building, will be irreparably damaged with the added amount of dirty, dusty diesel lorries that the Tarmac project would bring.

Not to mention the theft of the quality of life that the people of our village have chosen, which is their right. Not the noise of plant machinery working none stop eleven hours a day, which is not what most would call living a rural lifestyle, as is the villagers want.

If our summers are getting hotter and drier as is forecast, then the noise and dust from this project will make life unbearable for all villagers as we will want our doors and windows open throughout the summer. Not to mention the mud that will no doubt be brought out of the site in the winter, which will make driving on the B1150 even more hazardous.

At the initial presentation, one of the Tarmac team tried to compare the hours of work done on local farms, which is a rural industry, are the same hours as at the site proposed, but even at the peak of harvest the work moves all around the area so individuals are only disturbed for a few days a year. There is more disturbance from RAF Coltishall than there is from farming in the area. Even the fly pasts, which are noisy, but only last for five to ten minuets at a time and are intermittent would not compare to the constant drone from the proposed plant.

The new proposals are still not suitable and will cause disturbance and distress that is quite unnecessary and frankly all in the name of profit. I find the fact that there have been two inquiries as to whether the site is suitable in this area and both have been heavily objected to by the residents of the area, backed by their District and County councils, for Tarmac to be able to go to the back door to extend their profitability is quite offensive, as they have no regard to the wishes of the residents or the findings of the enquiries.

I have spoken to not one person locally who can find one good thing to come from allowing this project to continue, not even jobs to the area! To allow Tarmac planning permission for this project would be a travesty of justice, which is clearly not welcome.

Patricia Chapple

Editor: These letters concern the new appeal that Tarmac have launched. We urge everyone to contact as may people as possible to help lobby the authorities to prevent them being successful. Time is also of the essence!

The two bodies to apply to at the moment are:
• Mrs Gemma Govier
The Planning Inspectorate, 3/08a Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, Bristol, BS1 6PN
Your Ref: APP/X2600/A/03/1123380
and
• Mr A J Stopper
Administrative Assistant, Planning and Transport Dept, County Hall, Norwich, NR1 2SG
Your Ref: P/C/5/2003/5004