Emails
This is a summary of emails received. Please send your comments to Graham@Lorien56.Demon.Co.Uk - I reserve the right to edit anything published here ...
-- Graham
---
From Tony Dobbin Fri 14/03/2008 12:16
A few comments for what they are worth, following up last evening's meeting.
First, the grounds for objecting to the proposed Bridgham extraction site.
I believe that if the gravel lorries use The Street for journeys to and from Bridgham to Thetford or for westward destinations, the impact on the village will be significant.
Noise, vibration to old properties close to the road, possible adverse affect on all property values, degradation of already poor roads (hardly wide enough for two cars let alone lorries with no central white lining), gravel that falls on road surfaces (that will cause even more windscreen and bodywork damage) and increased hazards to road safety.
On this last point I feel it is worth pointing out that not all the village houses are served by pavements and many residents with young children have to walk on the road. Indeed, as was mentioned at the meeting, children (of certain ages?) do not qualify for school transport to East Harling primary.
I recall that Jasmine Smith was told that her daughter would have to walk from Bridgham along a road that has no pavements when she lost her place on the school bus. With the increases in vehicle fuel costs this might well become a more acute problem for parents and with the 10 per cent increase in houses referred to by David there is the prospect of more children in the village.
Secondly, there is the general issue of environment; the reason that we chose to live here in the firstplace ... the benefits of the countryside.
This will undoubtedly change if extraction were to go ahead. The County Council (elected by us) say they are committed to the protecting and enhancing the environment, but it appears that they intend to do the opposite in this village. So far, no benefits can be perceived so it should be no surprise that we are opposed to the proposal. It would have helped if they had given more time for the consultation period (don't they how parishes work and that meetings are only monthly) and how they define 'consultation'. Has anyone from NCC offered to come to talk to us?
Sorry if this is just repeating what you and others already feel, but airing and pooling our thoughts is all part of the process that leads to a coherent and strong case being put forward.
Regards,
Tony
---
From David O'Neale Fri 14/03/2008 16:59
Have just got off the phone from Breckland who are most certainly objecting to (gravel extraction in) Bridgham - who said they weren't? And they are e-mailing me their objections! Don't forget that I have the WHITE BANNER WE CAN USE AND SOME OF THE MILLENNIUM BOARDS. 10 Downing Street has yet to get the petition on-line though they have e-mailed to say it is.
---
From Douglas Porter Fri 14/03/2008 17:25
We were unfortunately unable to attend the meeting on Thursday and have only caught 'snippets' from people so far. We will of course be objecting as a village, but is there means to personally object? As I understand it one entrance/exit to the site will be opposite my home. I run a childminding business which has just been awarded an Ofsted 'Outstanding' grade (as you will be aware this is fairly prestigious in the field). Heavy lorries, and especially the dust and noise, combined with the excess danger, will SEVERELY affect the welfare of these children. Something the planning department I feel would take very seriously especially as they themselves have granted me permission to child-mind in the first place!!
From a family point of view I have a 4 year old with severe asthma and a 9 year old with Autistic Spectrum Disorder. The constant noise will have a dramatic effect on the elder and the previously mentioned dust etc will have a profound effect on the younger.
Perhaps you might wish to forward this to whomever is preparing a petition, or would you prefer me to put pen to paper directly?
With regards
Judith (and Douglas) Porter
---
From David O'Neale Fri 14/03/2008 17:49
Dear All,
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Bridgham-says-no/ You can now object to both Bridgham and Harling gravel extraction plans should you so wish. You register your protest on the site above and they then e-mail you to confirm you are who you say you are and then your name (no other details) go on.In spite of the title, it is for Harling too, so please pass this on to anyone from Harling area or indeed any friends futher afield who may support us. Hockham already has 570 signatures.
David
---
From Gary Francis Fri 14/03/2008 18:19
This might be of some use especially if people are filling out the forms to send back to the council.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 is the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence and offers general protection for a person’s private and family life – part of the wording states that :Protection of private life and the home may also be relevant to decisions made in planning and environmental contexts. Permitting the carrying out of unpleasant development nearby your home, for example a nuclear plant or waste site etc, which will affect your enjoyment of your property may be an interference with your rights under Article 8 which will need to be justified.
It also states The Duty of Public Authorities
The requirement on public authorities to act compatibly with Article 8 of the Convention is contained in Section 6 of the HRA. Section 6 provides that central government, local government and other public bodies must act compatibly with your rights.
Could you pass this on and put it on the Bridgham website as this could be used as one of the objections that having the quarry in the middle of a village and right on our door step is a breach of our human rights.
Cheers
Gary
---
From David O'Neale Mon 17/03/2008 21:48
Had
this today from Breckland. This is their objection - you may wish to put it on
the website.
Below is Breckland officer comments and recommendation to Policy Development and Review Panel 1 on 11th March on the Bridgham proposals:
Officer Comments: The site borders onto the B1111 which has good access to the A11. Minerals extraction in this area would provide a source of material for development in the A11 corridor including the centres of Attleborough and Thetford. However, the site has many constraints. The site lies within the river valley of the River Thet and any excavation would be visible from higher ground and involve the loss of pasture adjoining the river. Minerals development in this area would have a detrimental impact on the landscape character of the area, which is defined as a Core River Valley. The site is in close proximity to the Breckland SPA and a number of County Wildlife Sites. Evidence presented by Norfolk County Council suggests that excavation could affect the drainage of these protected areas and could therefore affect the protected species. The site also falls within a groundwater protection zone and therefore development could have an adverse effect on water supplies. The site is very close to the settlements of Bridgham and East Harling and minerals excavation at the site could cause noise, light and dust pollution issues for local residents. The Tree and Countryside Officer objects to this site.
Recommendation: Object for the reasons outlined
above.
------------------------------------------------------
---
From David O'Neale Mon 17/03/2008 21:50
It is tricky negotiating the Norfolk website. I sent this round to folks, but you might want to edit it and put this on the web:
-- David
However, the most important thing is that we make our objection known to Norfolk County Council. This took me sometime to sort out online. For those of you with sufficient interest and time available in the next ten days, the important thing is to register your objection with Norfolk County Council.
This can be done online, and you could win £250 for doing so!
This is the basic site - www.norfolk.gov.uk/nmwdf but you do have to register to complete online. After this, it took me some time to realise that to object, one had to click on direct access to the online form then scroll down to mis-spelt Bridgeham (!) and click on the blue cross (not the name) to get:
http://norfolk.jdi-consult.net/ldf/readdoc.php?docid=7&expertmode=1
and then a further menu of four areas of objection arise. If you click on the icon a box for your objection comes up. If you click on the subject a different page with some info appears. As to why you might object, there are reasons on our website ...... no one needs to use them all.
---
From Mark Dickenson Tue 18/03/2008 17:47
---
From David O'Neale Wed 26/03/2008 08:34
We had a very fruitful and encouraging meeting last night (Tuesday 25 March). The two most positive bits of info are:
1. Looking at the minerals evidence base on our website reveals that most of Norfolk's own comments are against it. Christine had looked at other sites (which aren't on the doc) and found nearly all the others were much more positive. She felt that they were actually telling us what to protest about
2. Using NCC's own objections, therefore, we should quote them back at them, agreeing and amplifying. We all thought by the end of the meeting that even NCC was beginning to regard Bridgham as a no-no - even whilst they were compiling the document. A conversation that Rosemary Hensby had with them yesterday supports this impression. However, we must make our protest otherwise they will assume the issues they themselves have raised are not issues to us.
Consequently, I have attached the negative comments of NCC which perhaps you can put on the website and e-mail folks that they are there.
---
From David Taylor Mon 14/04/2008 10:59
---
From
jubnut2001@yahoo.co.uk on Tue 10/06/2008 16:56
I was in the forest at Harling today and was disgusted with the amount of horrible flourescent posters for your campaign against the quarry stapled straight to the trees, don't you think that now that the fight has been won to stop this eyesore that you could remove the one caused by yourselves? If you are going to post these flyers at least have the decency to clear up after yourselves when they are no longer of any use.
I look forward to seeing these posters removed
James
---