Topic ID 7184
Hi All, Last Thursday I, along with around 100 others attended a meeting at Bayford Memorial Hall to discuss an application to open a quarry off the Lower Hatfield Road and Bayford Lane. Anyone that uses the Lower Hatfield Road between Essendon and Hertford will know what problems the lorries cause. The new quarry means that as Bunkers Quarry, supposedly to be reinstated as farmland during 2014, closes we would not see a reduction in the number of lorries using the road. Around 0.46 million tonnes of sand and gravel will be extracted and take 3 to 5 years. No communication from the quarry's owners, Frank Lyons Group, has been received by the local residents. Surely an indication of their total indifference to those that will undoubtedly suffer whilst they take their profit. Further information can be obtained by joining the No Bayford Quarry Group on Facebook at - [url]https://www.facebook.com/nobayfordquarry.group[/url] If you have any problems just send me a private message or post to this topic. The Application Number is 3/****-13 Site Number CM0093 Seems the East Herts website has Maintenance problems tonight. Nearest I can get is - [url]http://www.eastherts.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=15462[/url] The deadline for objections is the 16th May 2013. Regards George
Reply ID 93908
Hi All, Has anyone sent a letter off ? Can't believe that there hasn't been a single reply to the above post. George
Reply ID 93910
Hi All, If you want to view the application and email any objection the following will help. The Application is with Herts CC, not East Herts, as it comes under Minerals & Waste planning. So search at - [url]https://cloud1.atriumsoft.com/HCCePlanningOPS/searchPageLoad.do[/url] for 3/****-13 Objections, letter or email, should go to East Herts CC addressed to - Case Officer Chay Dempster Spatial Planning and Land Use Planning Unit CHN216, County Hall Herts. SG13 8DN Reference: Application Number 3/****-13 Site Number CM0093 (The four "****" are correct in the ref no.) Email your objections to - [email protected] Subject heading - Subject: Reference: Application Number: 3/****-13 Site Number: CM0093 Addressed to - Chay Dempster Make sure you include your address, its easy to forget when using email. The Deadline for objections is Thursday 16th May 2013. Hoping to get an extension. George
Reply ID 93911
quote:Perhaps we don't object because we don't live on that side of Hertford but the other (where the sand and gravel might have to come from if you're successful - at which point our own nimby tendencies might be provoked).[:D]
Originally posted by George Jamieson
Hi All, Has anyone sent a letter off ? Can't believe that there hasn't been a single reply to the above post. George
Reply ID 93912
quote:If you're hoping to start a heated debate on Hertford online then you'll be better off naming a restaurant in the town and making a comment about the entree. However, if you think you've got a local issue and that you want to raise the profile, then just keep posting concise, factual information as and when you have it. Don't be disheartened by the lack of replies. I've read your posts and followed all the links, so I imagine others may have done so as well. At the moment, it's not an issue that bothers me much, but keep the information flowing and perhaps you'll hit a nerve, if not with me then perhaps some others.
Originally posted by George Jamieson
Hi All, Has anyone sent a letter off ? Can't believe that there hasn't been a single reply to the above post. George
Reply ID 93914
Hi Darcy, With the economy as depressed as it is demand for sand & gravel is not heavy. I suspect the reason for the application is to allow the overfilled waste already at Bunkers Quarry, due to be finished and re-instated during 2014. They want a hole to put it in. Many quarries are not being worked as demand is so low. A new quarry at Broad Green is not on the councils preferred list and low in terms of yield for the amount of overburden that will need to be shifted. Nimby tendancies. We've put up with years of noise and nuisance from the quarries without complaining. I bought my house secure in the knowledge Bunkers would close during 2014 and Water Hall processing plant during 2017. Its been in my back yard for years so surely you don't want me to just sit back so as to avoid provoking your tendancies. My objections are based on valid points, as they need to be if they are to be considered by the council. Demand being what it is I honestly think Frank Lyons won't be looking to open up any other quarries in a hurry. So please consider offering us some help. George
Reply ID 93916
EnoughofThat, I'm up against an unfair deadline of this Thursday 16th. If we get an extension I will add to the topic. If you use the B158 Lower Hatfield Road you will have encountered lorries attemptinig to pass each other. In many places the road is not wide enough for them to pass without riding up onto the kerbside. The potholed road regularly floods and has mud deposited on it. George
Reply ID 93917
The deadline does seem pretty tight. I know from using the road how bad the lorry traffic can be. I also walk around that area and would be concerned on the impact on the countryside. It would be good to know what the owners of the land plan to do long term with the site in terms of restoring the land. Other quarry owners have in the past detailed their plans to restore/preserve the land when they have finished (Lafarge at the Panshanger site is an example)
Reply ID 93919
Hi Harry, Its a single farmers field opposite the entrance to Home Farm in Bayford Lane. As you turn into Bayford Lane from the Lower Hatfield Road the field is on your right. It is only accessable via a haul road via Bunkers Quarry. There is a haul road used during the life of Bunkers but it needs to be extended across farmland to gain access to new site. I would guess it to be about 1/4 mile from the entrance, opposite the entrance to the Water Hall processing plant, to the site of the new quarry. The residents have not been approached by Frank Lyons the quarry owner. George
Reply ID 93920
The direct link is here: https://cloud1.atriumsoft.com/HCCePlanningOPS/loadFullDetails.do?aplId=21110 The consultation was advertised and started on 25th April and is for the standard 3 week period.
Reply ID 93921
Hi Steve, Thanks for the link. Most residents received their notice of planning on the 30th April. It was sent out using 2nd class post. Thats a large chunk of the standard 3 week period. George
Reply ID 93922
Keep up the good work George. There are some bits that do not make sense here and suggest there is something more to the application. However seems unlikely to be granted right? Rules are not within 250m of houses and this is less than 100?
Reply ID 93925
Hi Codek2, I would much prefer to discuss everything openly but can't. Don't want to arm Frank Lyons with anything we have discovered. You are the second person to state 250m but plan shows 75m to edge of 5m high bund. I need to investigate 250m. Theres no way this should be granted. George
Reply ID 93926
Hi All, Can I ask everyone to pass on this information to anyone/groups/forums they think might be interested. Thinking here of cycle, rambler, bird watching etc. any clubs that might be concerned. Email [email protected] for further details. George
Reply ID 93927
I would much prefer to discuss everything openly but can't. Don't want to arm Frank Lyons with anything we have discovered. To my mind, you've undermined the credibility of your cause with this statement. If you're asking for public support and action then you should share all relevant information. Otherwise you're just asking people to take your word for it. Would you accept the same behaviour from Frank Lyons? If your undisclosed facts amount to a good case against the application then the more people that know them the better for you. If Frank Lyons can't effectively answer your facts then that also will count in your favour. By hiding what you know, I infer that the facts are weak and you fear they won't stand up to scrutiny. I may well be wrong to make this inference but experience tells me I am more often right than not to doubt people who aren't open and transparent.
Reply ID 93928
quote:A bit late in the day but a quick scan of the Environmental Statement shows some rather bland statements which might be challenged (but only at the expense of another survey). There is a comment that traffic won't be as high as "historical" levels?? The nearest SSSI might be Hertford Heath but there is also the woodland towards Hoddesdon and I would not be surprised to find some of the flora/fauna that make that woodland an SSSI present in at least the hedgerows that bound the site (they did find one snake so I would bet there are more). I might also want some more reassurance regarding the site surface drainage (into the river). They identify dust as the only contaminant that might enter the water-course but they are going to have vehicles on site aren't they? Anyhoo - all a bit late in the day now but that (along with the other comments made above) would be where I'd be trying to make a pitch... Best of luck! (I do hope there doesn't turn out to be a shortage of stuff for making bricks when Mrs S gets round to putting up the new porch! [:D])
Originally posted by George Jamieson
Hi Darcy, With the economy as depressed as it is demand for sand & gravel is not heavy. I suspect the reason for the application is to allow the overfilled waste already at Bunkers Quarry, due to be finished and re-instated during 2014. They want a hole to put it in. Many quarries are not being worked as demand is so low. A new quarry at Broad Green is not on the councils preferred list and low in terms of yield for the amount of overburden that will need to be shifted. Nimby tendancies. We've put up with years of noise and nuisance from the quarries without complaining. I bought my house secure in the knowledge Bunkers would close during 2014 and Water Hall processing plant during 2017. Its been in my back yard for years so surely you don't want me to just sit back so as to avoid provoking your tendancies. My objections are based on valid points, as they need to be if they are to be considered by the council. Demand being what it is I honestly think Frank Lyons won't be looking to open up any other quarries in a hurry. So please consider offering us some help. George
Reply ID 93929
quote:Are you really suggesting Frank Lyons Ltd is being honest and we should accept their application at face value. Why would we want to arm my opponent with all the details that our objections are based on. Some will not be so obvious but valid all the same. All the information is available to anyone who wants to know just email [email protected] . Best to not shoot ourselves in the foot before we can get going. George
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
I would much prefer to discuss everything openly but can't. Don't want to arm Frank Lyons with anything we have discovered. To my mind, you've undermined the credibility of your cause with this statement. If you're asking for public support and action then you should share all relevant information. Otherwise you're just asking people to take your word for it. Would you accept the same behaviour from Frank Lyons? If your undisclosed facts amount to a good case against the application then the more people that know them the better for you. If Frank Lyons can't effectively answer your facts then that also will count in your favour. By hiding what you know, I infer that the facts are weak and you fear they won't stand up to scrutiny. I may well be wrong to make this inference but experience tells me I am more often right than not to doubt people who aren't open and transparent.
Reply ID 93930
Good points Darcy. I hope Mrs S, my landlady, will not have a problem. George
Reply ID 93931
Are you really suggesting Frank Lyons Ltd is being honest and we should accept their application at face value. You further undermine your credibilty by putting words in to people's mouths. So far all we know about you is that you invite support based on facts you won't disclose and that you make things up to discredit critics. If your cause has any merit you're probably better off finding someone else to make it.
Reply ID 93932
Keep up the good work George. There are some bits that do not make sense here and suggest there is something more to the application. However seems unlikely to be granted right? Rules are not within 250m of houses and this is less than 100?
Reply ID 93936
quote:Darcy, ignore the "my landady". Was working on something for Hatfied House and thought you were referring to Lady Salisbury. George
Originally posted by George Jamieson
Good points Darcy. I hope Mrs S, my landlady, will not have a problem. George
Reply ID 93937
quote:Its not me thats undermining my credibility. If you care to contribute to the discussion rather than waste our time I'm sure folk would appreciate it. How have I discredited my critics ? George
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
Are you really suggesting Frank Lyons Ltd is being honest and we should accept their application at face value. You further undermine your credibilty by putting words in to people's mouths. So far all we know about you is that you invite support based on facts you won't disclose and that you make things up to discredit critics. If your cause has any merit you're probably better off finding someone else to make it.
Reply ID 93939
quote:That's a saucer of milk for an entree then, anyone got a spoon-preferably a wooden one? Ahem!
Originally posted by Enoughofthatquote:If you're hoping to start a heated debate on Hertford online then you'll be better off naming a restaurant in the town and making a comment about the entree. However, if you think you've got a local issue and that you want to raise the profile, then just keep posting concise, factual information as and when you have it. Don't be disheartened by the lack of replies. I've read your posts and followed all the links, so I imagine others may have done so as well. At the moment, it's not an issue that bothers me much, but keep the information flowing and perhaps you'll hit a nerve, if not with me then perhaps some others.
Originally posted by George Jamieson
Hi All, Has anyone sent a letter off ? Can't believe that there hasn't been a single reply to the above post. George
Reply ID 93940
quote:[;)] Phew - I thought Mrs S had started a sideline!
Originally posted by George Jamiesonquote:Darcy, ignore the "my landady". Was working on something for Hatfied House and thought you were referring to Lady Salisbury. George
Originally posted by George Jamieson
Good points Darcy. I hope Mrs S, my landlady, will not have a problem. George
Reply ID 93942
quote:Dear ET, Care to respond ??? George
Originally posted by George Jamiesonquote:Its not me thats undermining my credibility. If you care to contribute to the discussion rather than waste our time I'm sure folk would appreciate it. How have I discredited my critics ? George
Originally posted by Enoughofthat
Are you really suggesting Frank Lyons Ltd is being honest and we should accept their application at face value. You further undermine your credibilty by putting words in to people's mouths. So far all we know about you is that you invite support based on facts you won't disclose and that you make things up to discredit critics. If your cause has any merit you're probably better off finding someone else to make it.
Reply ID 93949
'When threads go bad' in four days. Not bad.
Reply ID 93950
quote:I understand it's probably frustrating if you're passionate enough about a topic to raise awareness on a forum such as this, but fail to elicit much response.
Originally posted by Leo Densian
'When threads go bad' in four days. Not bad.
Reply ID 93953
Leo, is 4 days good, bad or the average. Ted, we've had some folk thanking us for making them aware and giving them an opportunity, be it hurried, to share their concerns with the Council. So apart from the distractions during this thread it has been worthwhile. The fight goes on. Cheer, all. George
Reply ID 94021
Hi All, Approximately 200 letters of objection received by Council. Well done to all those that wrote in. George