Post by andyg on Feb 8, 2011 22:42:55 GMT
here are some submissions made by my wife I thought they may be useful to others as a basis for questions, please feel free to adapt them if you want to but don't paste word for word. The leaflet distributed last weekend contains many suggestions for submissions as well - make sure you write in and that every member of your household writes, not just one person as the more questions ECC receive the stronger our case will be.
I wish to ask the following questions regarding the proposed Mineral development plan
All relate to site A9 , Broadfield Farm , Rayne except the final one about the site distribution
1 - Mineral resources
In view of the fact that we have been in a very deep recession for several years (the deepest since the war if the previous government were to be believed) when construction ground to a halt overnight, the planned gravel extraction on the county during the current mining period must have taken a large negative hit such that much of that planned to be dug is still there waiting to be removed. Has this remaining stock in the current plan been taken into account for the current submission because that will surely diminish the need for further new pits in the short and medium term and mean that the existing pits could supply the total demand without any new sutes particularly in Rayne which has existing pits around it in almost all directions
2 - Ecology and Designations
We have an excellent selection of wildlife around Rayne some of which are protected species. The wildlife reports on the monthly parish magazine bear this out. I am most concerned that were this development to go ahead not only would it destroy the habitat for many of these creatures but those that do not directly lose their homes will be driven away by the 6 day a week noise and dust – how will you prevent this?
Also there will be large quantities of dirty water to be disposed of, I am concerned that this will damage the local rivers, both are quite small and such a large amount of water will change them completely – how will this be controlled both in the quantity and the quality of the water going into the rivers
I think your score for this is wrong, the impact will be far greater that you are suggesting –will you reassess the scoring please
3 - Agriculture Crop loss
These 90 hectares provide a large proportion of the farmland around Rayne and high quality farmland at that. With demand for food ever growing, global warming meaning that imported food will become scarcer as foreign land becomes arid how can you justify the destruction of this land the area of which could probably go a long way to producing sufficient cereals to feed Rayne on an annual basis and have plenty to spare – it just doesn’t make sense, the shortfall will have to be catered for somehow, I wonder how? If this is pushing Rayne into the red as far as sufficiency is concerned surely the score must follow suit and become RED
4 - Historic Environment
The report says that there is likely to be roman remains as the site is close to the old Roman road as well as an important roman villa. No matter what you do, if this development goes ahead these ancient sites will be lost forever because it only takes a bit of common sense to realise that once the developer starts work with all the costs involved he will be in a very strong position to continue without proper controls in place. To consider the wrecking of such important archaeology is scandalous and I just want to know how you can justify this
5 - Water/ Hydrology
Because of the Stansted requirements there will be a large hole full of water that will have to be constantly drained. This will drop the water levels in the surrounding areas and ensure that plants dry out depriving wildlife of it’s habitat. It will also mean that all this water will have to go somewhere and that will have to be the River Ter- how can all this water go into a tiny river without having any effect, in the summer it will account for most of the water in the river and if it’s silty it will clog it up and in the winter when the river runs full it wont be able to cope with the extra water and places will get flooded. – the green score implies no effect – how can you prove that?
6 - Traffic and transportation
All the extra traffic will have to find it’s way to the main roads but we already see lorries using the village as a shour cut or time saver when there are problems on the main routes, there is a weight limit in the village but policing it is generally ignored and can you explain why that is likely to change with all the cut backs. You will be putting lorries onto an already busy A120 towards Colchester – this jams up all the way from Galleys corner to beyond Panners Farm at busy times (it’s the first roundabout people get to after leaving London so it’s the first bottleneck) so it doesn’t take a lot to realise that with deliveries to meet and costs to cut these lorries will come through Rayne and then through Braintree to avoid Galleys corner at the first sign of delays. Going the other way towards Dunmow, there is no way of getting onto the westbound A120 west of Rayne so all the lorries will have to use the old road, putting traffic back onto a road that was by-passed just a few years ago because it couldn’t cope and because it is now by-passed it won’t be getting the investment it once had to maintain it. Your score suggests that you have not taken this into account properly so please explain how you expect our roads to stand up to this heavy traffic being imposed upon it
7 - Amenity and Pollution
Because most of the market for the gravel is not close to Rayne, this site is located where traffic going to or from it will have to pass other existing preferred sites on it’s way to delivering it’s loads. This will increase journey lengths unnecessarily as the other pits have the resources available to meet the demand were approval to be granted and all this traffic will generate large amounts of carbon dioxide massively increasing the county’s carbon footprint – how do you intend to justify this? It will also cause a lot of other needless pollution due to the longer journeys involved and the other toxic gases generated by HGV traffic
8 - Restoration and After-use
Your report says that due to the proximity of Stansted you cannot leave large areas of water on the site either during the works or when work finishes and that reinstatement will be by replacement of the overburden. This will be a very large deep hole and the overburden will be like a drop in the ocean (or lake). It doesn’t take an expert to realise that to meet the Stansted conditions the hole will need extra fill AND A LOT OF IT to bring the level up above the natural water table. So not only do you expect us to put up with 14 years of gravel extraction and the associated pollution and disturbance (a very negative amenity) we are going to have vast amounts of carbon emissions pushing up the county carbon footprint because this site’s location (unlike others) means it can be left as a water amenity. – please tell me how you can disagree with this state of affairs.
9 - Proximity to sensitive uses
The proximity of Stansted as a sensitive use has a massive bearing on how this site can be developed and just as importantly how it is left afterwards. There will be an enormous hole which cannot be left with water in it so unlike other sites not within the Stansted zone this will have to be specially filled to comply with their requirements, all this will cost money unless it is paid for by the charges to dump nasty materials on the site in which case the proposal can only be profit motivated – why is this considered acceptable?
10 - Other – creeping development
I’m concerned that once this development is allowed to start then it will just be allowed to grow and grow – the plan shows a large area on the eastern side of the site (nearest the village) which is not being dug up at this stage. However when you look at the 20 sites being proposed, 16 of them are already being dug and are looking to expand so history says that this one is likely to as well and that ECC will support that expansion as part of their policy, so the residents and school pupils of Rayne will have a giant hole creeping ever closer every time you update you minerals policy – can you justify so much damage tour village life?
11 - Other – the borders of the site plan are misleading
Your plan for this site is misleading. The right hand side of the plan stops almost exactly where the housing and the school starts so that they do not show on the plan – this is a very misleading representation to make the site appear to be far from the village community and if I were of a suspicious mind I would think it were done deliberately just for that reason. Will you tell me why the map so conveniently finishes there and in fact will you re-issue the document with the housing and school shown to give a proper indication of the proximity of the site to the village please?
12 - Other – disproportionate size of proposed development
This development is totally out of proportion to our very adjacent village – the giant hole will be about 1 ½ times the size of the village – how can you even suggest that something so disproportional will have no effect on the character of the village, it will drain the whole area and leave us with dried gardens and lawns, the trees will die through lack of water and Rayne will be changed for the worse for ever.
13 - Other -- Safety
The document makes no mention re the safety of the public re the proposed development – why?
An enormous hole partly containing deep water, slurry pits and machinery both moving around the site and static for gravel washing and yet is there no mention of the protection of the public by way of fencing. Being so close to the village (although your map conveniently distorts that fact) you are creating an appetizing attraction for children and I wonder why such a dangerous playground is being proposed so close to the village. My husband looked at the site at Great Leighs recently and showed me some photos which demonstrate just how little consideration is given to keeping the public out, there is even a well trodden path clearly visible onto the site! Having The fencing is little more than a token gesture and is not being maintained so that it would be easy for a slightly curious or adventurous child to get onto the site and either fall into the water or slurry or climb on the machinery – With the Rayne site being much closer to the village population the chance of a serious accident it would only be a matter of time before a serious accident occurred – why does the document not mention this?
Amenity & Pollution
14 - Dust
Your document states (in 2.3.8 Air Quality) that aggregate recycling dust from surface mineral operations can have a noticeable environmental impact and affect the quality of life of local communities. Amenities can potentially be affected by dust up to 1km from the source, although concerns about dust are most likely to be experienced near to dust sources, at distances up to approximately 100m. Rayne primary school is only 800m from the boundary of the proposed pit and is downwind of the prevailing westerly wind and the village housing is also about the same distance away so will you please tell me how the location of this site meets the above criteria re local communities as stated in your own document please? You have scored this site green which suggests this is quite alright but that does not concur with your own stated criteria.
15 - Landscape (1st question)
The views across these fields from Pods Lane and the footpath just west of it are some of the best in Rayne especially in the evening when we can see wonderful sunsets. You are happy to condone the complete destruction of one area of woodland (Moors Spinney) which is not even mentioned in your report and the site will be very close (60m) to Rumley Wood so if that is protected by bunding which will totally spoil the views across this land – why has such little consideration been given to this and Moors Spinney not even afforded a line in the report. I cannot understand how this can be scored anything other than Red (currently Amber 2), also I note that you say advance planting is well established on the southern boundary – does this mean that your mind is already made up and that this is just a paper exercise to satisfy those who have the ultimate say? –surely if the planting is part of the scheme it requires planning permission and until that is granted it should not have commenced- is that a reasonable assumption?
16 - Landscape (2nd question)
The eastern side of the site appears not to be excavated (at least in the present phase) one so I assume this area will be used for soil and waster material storage in large heaps which will literally cast a shadow over Rayne in the evening sun and blight our landscape for many, many years. There are wonderful views across these fields at present and the wanton destruction of this landscape deserves nothing other than a score of RED
17 - Water/ Hydrology
This massive hole is going to drain the surrounding land for the duration of the works as the water will be constantly pumped away making room for more water to run into the hole (water travels very easily through gravel so it will drain from well into the housing areas of the village. The soil closer to the surface in Rayne is mainly clay which you will know is subject to high amounts of shrinkage, I am concerned what effect this will have on the foundations of the houses in Rayne particularly those built before stringent building regulations were in place to counter clay shrinkage. When this occurs will you be paying compensation to residents suffering from this as due diligence will have highlighted that risk ?
Has this likelihood been taken into account and will residents have recourse to claim against both the gravel prospector for the damage incurred and the County Council for negligence in not protecting the people of Rayne against this hazard which due diligence by the County council must surely have flagged up?
18 - Question 18 states:
‘Do you agree that the distribution of preferred sites shown on Map 5 above reflects the preferred spatial strategy - that is, provides a dispersed spread of sites with an emphasis on extensions?
I do not agree with this at all. There is already a large number of sites in the Braintree district and this plan calls for around 50% of the county gravel to be supplied from these pits whereas the actual demand in the Braintree area is probably no more that 10 or 15% so 35% of the county’s gravel will have to be transported over unnecessarily long journeys with the accompanying pollution in the form of noise, dust and toxic emissions as well as a large increase in the carbon footprint of the area? Why are the sites more local to their markets not being considered more seriously rather than entre the Essex gravel production primarily in the Braintree district where demand is not as high?
I wish to ask the following questions regarding the proposed Mineral development plan
All relate to site A9 , Broadfield Farm , Rayne except the final one about the site distribution
1 - Mineral resources
In view of the fact that we have been in a very deep recession for several years (the deepest since the war if the previous government were to be believed) when construction ground to a halt overnight, the planned gravel extraction on the county during the current mining period must have taken a large negative hit such that much of that planned to be dug is still there waiting to be removed. Has this remaining stock in the current plan been taken into account for the current submission because that will surely diminish the need for further new pits in the short and medium term and mean that the existing pits could supply the total demand without any new sutes particularly in Rayne which has existing pits around it in almost all directions
2 - Ecology and Designations
We have an excellent selection of wildlife around Rayne some of which are protected species. The wildlife reports on the monthly parish magazine bear this out. I am most concerned that were this development to go ahead not only would it destroy the habitat for many of these creatures but those that do not directly lose their homes will be driven away by the 6 day a week noise and dust – how will you prevent this?
Also there will be large quantities of dirty water to be disposed of, I am concerned that this will damage the local rivers, both are quite small and such a large amount of water will change them completely – how will this be controlled both in the quantity and the quality of the water going into the rivers
I think your score for this is wrong, the impact will be far greater that you are suggesting –will you reassess the scoring please
3 - Agriculture Crop loss
These 90 hectares provide a large proportion of the farmland around Rayne and high quality farmland at that. With demand for food ever growing, global warming meaning that imported food will become scarcer as foreign land becomes arid how can you justify the destruction of this land the area of which could probably go a long way to producing sufficient cereals to feed Rayne on an annual basis and have plenty to spare – it just doesn’t make sense, the shortfall will have to be catered for somehow, I wonder how? If this is pushing Rayne into the red as far as sufficiency is concerned surely the score must follow suit and become RED
4 - Historic Environment
The report says that there is likely to be roman remains as the site is close to the old Roman road as well as an important roman villa. No matter what you do, if this development goes ahead these ancient sites will be lost forever because it only takes a bit of common sense to realise that once the developer starts work with all the costs involved he will be in a very strong position to continue without proper controls in place. To consider the wrecking of such important archaeology is scandalous and I just want to know how you can justify this
5 - Water/ Hydrology
Because of the Stansted requirements there will be a large hole full of water that will have to be constantly drained. This will drop the water levels in the surrounding areas and ensure that plants dry out depriving wildlife of it’s habitat. It will also mean that all this water will have to go somewhere and that will have to be the River Ter- how can all this water go into a tiny river without having any effect, in the summer it will account for most of the water in the river and if it’s silty it will clog it up and in the winter when the river runs full it wont be able to cope with the extra water and places will get flooded. – the green score implies no effect – how can you prove that?
6 - Traffic and transportation
All the extra traffic will have to find it’s way to the main roads but we already see lorries using the village as a shour cut or time saver when there are problems on the main routes, there is a weight limit in the village but policing it is generally ignored and can you explain why that is likely to change with all the cut backs. You will be putting lorries onto an already busy A120 towards Colchester – this jams up all the way from Galleys corner to beyond Panners Farm at busy times (it’s the first roundabout people get to after leaving London so it’s the first bottleneck) so it doesn’t take a lot to realise that with deliveries to meet and costs to cut these lorries will come through Rayne and then through Braintree to avoid Galleys corner at the first sign of delays. Going the other way towards Dunmow, there is no way of getting onto the westbound A120 west of Rayne so all the lorries will have to use the old road, putting traffic back onto a road that was by-passed just a few years ago because it couldn’t cope and because it is now by-passed it won’t be getting the investment it once had to maintain it. Your score suggests that you have not taken this into account properly so please explain how you expect our roads to stand up to this heavy traffic being imposed upon it
7 - Amenity and Pollution
Because most of the market for the gravel is not close to Rayne, this site is located where traffic going to or from it will have to pass other existing preferred sites on it’s way to delivering it’s loads. This will increase journey lengths unnecessarily as the other pits have the resources available to meet the demand were approval to be granted and all this traffic will generate large amounts of carbon dioxide massively increasing the county’s carbon footprint – how do you intend to justify this? It will also cause a lot of other needless pollution due to the longer journeys involved and the other toxic gases generated by HGV traffic
8 - Restoration and After-use
Your report says that due to the proximity of Stansted you cannot leave large areas of water on the site either during the works or when work finishes and that reinstatement will be by replacement of the overburden. This will be a very large deep hole and the overburden will be like a drop in the ocean (or lake). It doesn’t take an expert to realise that to meet the Stansted conditions the hole will need extra fill AND A LOT OF IT to bring the level up above the natural water table. So not only do you expect us to put up with 14 years of gravel extraction and the associated pollution and disturbance (a very negative amenity) we are going to have vast amounts of carbon emissions pushing up the county carbon footprint because this site’s location (unlike others) means it can be left as a water amenity. – please tell me how you can disagree with this state of affairs.
9 - Proximity to sensitive uses
The proximity of Stansted as a sensitive use has a massive bearing on how this site can be developed and just as importantly how it is left afterwards. There will be an enormous hole which cannot be left with water in it so unlike other sites not within the Stansted zone this will have to be specially filled to comply with their requirements, all this will cost money unless it is paid for by the charges to dump nasty materials on the site in which case the proposal can only be profit motivated – why is this considered acceptable?
10 - Other – creeping development
I’m concerned that once this development is allowed to start then it will just be allowed to grow and grow – the plan shows a large area on the eastern side of the site (nearest the village) which is not being dug up at this stage. However when you look at the 20 sites being proposed, 16 of them are already being dug and are looking to expand so history says that this one is likely to as well and that ECC will support that expansion as part of their policy, so the residents and school pupils of Rayne will have a giant hole creeping ever closer every time you update you minerals policy – can you justify so much damage tour village life?
11 - Other – the borders of the site plan are misleading
Your plan for this site is misleading. The right hand side of the plan stops almost exactly where the housing and the school starts so that they do not show on the plan – this is a very misleading representation to make the site appear to be far from the village community and if I were of a suspicious mind I would think it were done deliberately just for that reason. Will you tell me why the map so conveniently finishes there and in fact will you re-issue the document with the housing and school shown to give a proper indication of the proximity of the site to the village please?
12 - Other – disproportionate size of proposed development
This development is totally out of proportion to our very adjacent village – the giant hole will be about 1 ½ times the size of the village – how can you even suggest that something so disproportional will have no effect on the character of the village, it will drain the whole area and leave us with dried gardens and lawns, the trees will die through lack of water and Rayne will be changed for the worse for ever.
13 - Other -- Safety
The document makes no mention re the safety of the public re the proposed development – why?
An enormous hole partly containing deep water, slurry pits and machinery both moving around the site and static for gravel washing and yet is there no mention of the protection of the public by way of fencing. Being so close to the village (although your map conveniently distorts that fact) you are creating an appetizing attraction for children and I wonder why such a dangerous playground is being proposed so close to the village. My husband looked at the site at Great Leighs recently and showed me some photos which demonstrate just how little consideration is given to keeping the public out, there is even a well trodden path clearly visible onto the site! Having The fencing is little more than a token gesture and is not being maintained so that it would be easy for a slightly curious or adventurous child to get onto the site and either fall into the water or slurry or climb on the machinery – With the Rayne site being much closer to the village population the chance of a serious accident it would only be a matter of time before a serious accident occurred – why does the document not mention this?
Amenity & Pollution
14 - Dust
Your document states (in 2.3.8 Air Quality) that aggregate recycling dust from surface mineral operations can have a noticeable environmental impact and affect the quality of life of local communities. Amenities can potentially be affected by dust up to 1km from the source, although concerns about dust are most likely to be experienced near to dust sources, at distances up to approximately 100m. Rayne primary school is only 800m from the boundary of the proposed pit and is downwind of the prevailing westerly wind and the village housing is also about the same distance away so will you please tell me how the location of this site meets the above criteria re local communities as stated in your own document please? You have scored this site green which suggests this is quite alright but that does not concur with your own stated criteria.
15 - Landscape (1st question)
The views across these fields from Pods Lane and the footpath just west of it are some of the best in Rayne especially in the evening when we can see wonderful sunsets. You are happy to condone the complete destruction of one area of woodland (Moors Spinney) which is not even mentioned in your report and the site will be very close (60m) to Rumley Wood so if that is protected by bunding which will totally spoil the views across this land – why has such little consideration been given to this and Moors Spinney not even afforded a line in the report. I cannot understand how this can be scored anything other than Red (currently Amber 2), also I note that you say advance planting is well established on the southern boundary – does this mean that your mind is already made up and that this is just a paper exercise to satisfy those who have the ultimate say? –surely if the planting is part of the scheme it requires planning permission and until that is granted it should not have commenced- is that a reasonable assumption?
16 - Landscape (2nd question)
The eastern side of the site appears not to be excavated (at least in the present phase) one so I assume this area will be used for soil and waster material storage in large heaps which will literally cast a shadow over Rayne in the evening sun and blight our landscape for many, many years. There are wonderful views across these fields at present and the wanton destruction of this landscape deserves nothing other than a score of RED
17 - Water/ Hydrology
This massive hole is going to drain the surrounding land for the duration of the works as the water will be constantly pumped away making room for more water to run into the hole (water travels very easily through gravel so it will drain from well into the housing areas of the village. The soil closer to the surface in Rayne is mainly clay which you will know is subject to high amounts of shrinkage, I am concerned what effect this will have on the foundations of the houses in Rayne particularly those built before stringent building regulations were in place to counter clay shrinkage. When this occurs will you be paying compensation to residents suffering from this as due diligence will have highlighted that risk ?
Has this likelihood been taken into account and will residents have recourse to claim against both the gravel prospector for the damage incurred and the County Council for negligence in not protecting the people of Rayne against this hazard which due diligence by the County council must surely have flagged up?
18 - Question 18 states:
‘Do you agree that the distribution of preferred sites shown on Map 5 above reflects the preferred spatial strategy - that is, provides a dispersed spread of sites with an emphasis on extensions?
I do not agree with this at all. There is already a large number of sites in the Braintree district and this plan calls for around 50% of the county gravel to be supplied from these pits whereas the actual demand in the Braintree area is probably no more that 10 or 15% so 35% of the county’s gravel will have to be transported over unnecessarily long journeys with the accompanying pollution in the form of noise, dust and toxic emissions as well as a large increase in the carbon footprint of the area? Why are the sites more local to their markets not being considered more seriously rather than entre the Essex gravel production primarily in the Braintree district where demand is not as high?
