Essex minerals local plan review

I understand the requirments for obtaining minierals but strongly object to these begin obtained within a populated area close to homes and schools.
A) close proximitry to respidential properties, village scholld, a montessori nursery school, 2 care homes. Noise and dust suppression would be impossible to maintain. Forty six properties are within fifty meters of the site.
B)Transport Issues. HGVs would need to access the wider road network and there are no safe routes from the current private road.
Current viaduct unsuitable for heavy loads.
C)Significant archaeolology buried within the site.

Road infastructure is often conjested, arlesford viaduct is unable to accomodate heavy vehicles and so would HGVs be increased thorough the village, they have been even though a diversion has been in place since the restriction signs regarding the viaduct have bee in place.
Arlesford does have a station but this s a passenger station with no infrastructure for transfering aggregates.
A) close proximitry to respidential properties, village scholld, a montessori nursery school, 2 care homes. Noise and dust suppression would be impossible to maintain. Forty six properties are within fifty meters of the site.
B)Transport Issues. HGVs would need to access the wider road network and there are no safe routes from the current private road.
Current viaduct unsuitable for heavy loads.
C)Significant archaeolology buried within the site.

Mineral extraction although important should not impact on the health of the local population
Ground water level changes, we already have flooding within Ford Lane. changes in these ground levels can lead to ground instability, increased risk of subsidence, espicially in areas when soil composition is affceted by water levels.
Arlesford has areas of hign subsidence, mentioned within deeds to house.
Vibrations from blasting and heavy machinery , use of explosives, constant movement of heavy machinery can creat vibrations that are transmitted through the gorund. Over time these vibrations can weaken soil and rock structures, potentially leading to subsidence, espicailly when underlying geology is susceptable to such movements.

Sustainability should not be more improtant than the physical and mental health of the local polulation.
Loss of public footpaths, ability to be able to take a walk without increased dust and noise.
I understand the requirments for obtaining minierals but strongly object to these begin obtained within a populated area close to homes and schools.
A) close proximitry to respidential properties, village scholld, a montessori nursery school, 2 care homes. Noise and dust suppression would be impossible to maintain. Forty six properties are within fifty meters of the site.
B)Transport Issues. HGVs would need to access the wider road network and there are no safe routes from the current private road.
Current viaduct unsuitable for heavy loads.
C)Significant archaeolology buried within the site.
Vibrations, blasting, subsidance, water increases drains already blocked flood already occuring on ford Lane.

Road and rail infrastructure not able to accomodate increase in HGV traffic and increase in aggregate loads.
Impact on local roads, already many pot holes, irregular pavements .
Noise impact from increase in traffic.
Too close to homes, nursery, care homes and schools.
Lose public footpaths access to countty advised by NHS england for improved mental health of the population.

I fail to see how this proposal would not have a negative impact on climate change, increase in HGVs, increase in emissons, dust, noise, movement of heavy machinery.
Effect on dust poeple sitting in own gardens as well of noise polution.
Too close to homes, schools, care homes nurserys.

I fail to see how this proposal will reduce the use of mineral resources as the aim is to dig them up near to local residents homes.
The act of extraction and movement will have a negative impact on daily life.

I can not see how using machinery to crush or recycle aggregates would not increase dust and noise polution as I have witnessed this walking past the facillity at the bottom of ford Lane. This is a noisey dusty processwhich would negatively affect the local population
in all the way previously mentions.
Flooding, noise, dust, vibrations, subsidence, affect on roads and rail infrastructure.

I disagree regarding the overriding need to the facility to the county at large, other sites must be available away from homes to enable extraction without damaging the health and prosperity of the local rate paying polulation.

This policy does not speicify which mineral is to be extracted as it seems it can change dependant on need and minerals availabel, Therefore any minerals could be extracted by ither means within the time frame if deemed necessary, therefore what are we agreeing too?

100meter buffer surrounding site would not stop noise dust, earth movement through heavy machinery, blasting use of water increasing chance of possible flooding and subsidence.

Disagree no minerals should be extracted on a site with archeologal importance or near to loacal houses and schools.

This proposal would adversly affect all who love and work wihtin Arlesford and would have a negative impact on physical and mental wellbeing for all residents. 100meter buffer zone would not reduce this the impact of increased traffice heavy machinery vibrationas and noise may not be immediatley seen but would have a lasting impact and this should be consisdered.

I disagree alresfor does not have appropriate road ad rail structure to accomodate increase in hevay vehicles esspecially with the viaducrt not able to take heavy loads which would mean more traffic within and through the village or wivenhoe town

although the turning ovr of the lansd once all mineral are extracted is a wonderful thougth, my lifespan is such that I would not be around to see the benefit, although this is a selfish view it is also an important one.
All the negative impact on health which the proposal would have an impact on life expectancy.

I do bot beleive that the council has consulted all persons who will be affected and believe this contraviens law. All resident of Alresfor will be impacted aloing with the residents of Wivenhoe due to the travel of noise and dust and the lose of public countryside walks. Impact on wildlife and plants.

Ford lane already floods , this roposal would have a negative impact due to use of water either pumping out or in extraction having a negative impact on the water table. Streams clear water would be contaminated which run into the river. Local fishing lakes poluted having an impact on the fish within and the ability to fish in a quiet tranquile place.
Public right of way, bridle path and sixpenny brook would be signifiacwently and adversely affected,
Too close to houses and schools.

Disagree pimary and secondary proposals more machinary within poulated area,
100meters from colne estary having a negative impact on an area of special scientific interest, the specia protection area and the renowned Ramsar site.
Mucgh visited beuty spot public tights of way that lead to arlesford crreek and the river colne,

If proposal accepted monitoring would have no benefit to local population as all structures, machinery, vehicles blasting, dust would already be having a negative impact. with significant cost, so monitoring does not allay any fears or objections.

No information on other sites WHY?
Appendix one states decision based on need of minerals not negative impact on local population.

I feel this proposal as staed previously will have a negative imapct on many levels with the population of Arlesford and Wivenhoe and should not be considered

Only one public meeting held to discuss not allowing people who work to access is unacceptable.
This propsal is unacceptable as too near to population

Local support to reject this proposal due to close proximity to homes and schools, light , noise, dust, emissions all increased and would have a negative impact on life.

I object
I understand the requirments for obtaining minierals but strongly object to these begin obtained within a populated area close to homes and schools.
A) close proximitry to respidential properties, village scholld, a montessori nursery school, 2 care homes. Noise and dust suppression would be impossible to maintain. Forty six properties are within fifty meters of the site.
B)Transport Issues. HGVs would need to access the wider road network and there are no safe routes from the current private road. Current viaduct unsuitable for heavy loads.
C)Significant archaeolology buried within the site.
D)groundwater level changes
E)Vibrations from blasting and heavy machinery
F)Removal od supportive materials, increasing risk of subsidence
G)Alteration of natural drainage patterns
H)Public right of way, bridle path, signiificantly and adversely affected
I) Loss of grade II agricultural land during quarrying programme.
J) Overhead power cables within site represent an obsticle any movement woul dhave an affect on local residents.
K)Significant and damaging impact on plant and wildlife
L0Transport issues HGV movements (following on site processing) would have adverse effect on bridleway and no safe routes from the site to the wider road network.