The new proposed area proposes a reduced tonnage to 2-3 million tonnes of sand &
gravel. We know this is factually incorrect and actual figures are substantially lower.
The council should evidence with technical data how these figures have been
calculated – this should be made aware to the general public. The landowners have
stated they want this information kept confidential – one would ask the reason why.
As a Government body spending tax payers money there has to be complete
transparency – this is not. The council documents state a need for sand and gravel –
the site in question has very limited sand and gravel. We estimate (following our
independent study) sand and gravel to be 245,000 tonnes with the remainder of the
site being clay and sand.
If the production quantities are as we think, this is not a viable site.
The council needs to explain what the proposed site will be used for, as all council
documentation shows the call for site is for the next 30 year plan – a proposed start
date of 2025. The landowners submission states start date is 2017 – this cannot
comply with the council requirements.
Access is proposed from the site on to the new Bedale Bypass. We note this will be at
the expense of the landowners but question the disruption to a multimillion pound
construction, to travellers whilst being constructed and then when complete, 90 to 130
vehicles entering/exiting per day. This is a main route joining A1 to A19 (particularly
when there’s an accident on one of these roads), it floods constantly and is completely
inappropriate for this main road.
The preferred site is in 2 parts access between the 2 sections will have to utilise 3rd
party land – all the above factors make this a very messy site which has limited
financial viability.
As we have identified the production figures are a long way short of the landowners
estimates – can the council justify taking grade 2/3 agricultural land and ruining it for
minimal production. The cost of re routing the pipeline has to be added to the
equation. Again the financial viability is questionable for such limited gains.
Ministry of Defence – we have undertaken a study of the area and we would comment
as follows:The water run off from East of the site collects in the Southern area of the preferred
site which is of marshy terrain. The Eastern side has the water table level close to the
ground surface. These factors combined cause excessive quantities in the area. Once
extraction starts this would create ponding in the area. The Vale of Mowbray is a
major wintering site for large numbers of geese, lapwings & curlews. These factors
would inevitably cause nesting within the MOD safe guarded zone. This is something
that contractors will not be able to mitigate. This is a massive safety issue for the
public as the jets fly only a few hundred feet above not only residences but the A684.
Birds are a major danger for jets.
Dust is also a major danger for jets (they are not allowed to fly if there is a problem).
The site is situated in high velocity wind area (technical data is available to support
this). The area struggles constantly with sand storms from normal agricultural work.
Quarrying would exacerbate this problem – contractors would find it impossible to
mitigate this problem using normal procedures.
The bridleway across the centre of the site & Fencedyke Lane are the only
recreational areas within walking distance for Leeming Bar. It is a key route for
residents of Scruton, Great Fencote & Little Fencote – it will be impossible for
residents to use this area and leaves some with no facilities. This means they have to
drive to a new location.
The area is trying to encourage tourism with the Wensleydale railway, Scruton &
Leeming railway stations, national cycle route & destination facilities in Leeming Bar
– this quarry would kill any hope of developing income stream to the area..
A quarry so close to the villages will cause irreparable damage to the quality of
numerous (not just a few) residents lives and destroy the value of their homes. There
is a very high portion of elderly people living in the area who will find this situation
distressing but injurious to their health. Will the landowners foot the increased NHS
bill as a result?