A south Suffolk parish council has submitted its objections regarding a planned 36-hectare quarry, calling its provisions "woefully inadequate".
In August, the Royal Court of Justice quashed the approval given by Suffolk County Council to allow the facility at Brockley Wood, between Belstead and Bentley.
This was after legal action was launched by Bentley Parish Council, Copdock and Washbrook Parish Council and a small group of residents in May.
However, the applicants have now submitted an addendum to their plans that looks to address the issues of landscaping picked up by the court.
Copdock and Washbrook Parish Council has now submitted its formal objection to Suffolk County Council stating several issues arising from the addendum.
Along with the parish council, 97 residents have also issued objections to this application since the new consultation began in September.
Their objection states that the amount of sand and gravel that is proposed to be taken from this quarry is far above the need that is stated in the county's Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
Additionally, they state that Belstead has no provision for an inert waste processing plant, and say that the current plans "magnifies the environmental destruction and adds wholly unnecessary HGV volumes".
They also state that the number of HGVs which will be coming to the quarry will be too many and that the current lorry management plan is "woefully inadequate".
Their objection states that there has been a 67% increase in the number of cars travelling down the Old London Road compared to 2022 due to congestion at the A12/14 Copdock interchange.
"Why will 170+ HGV drivers emerging from the site and seeing the queuing on the A12 literally above them be any different?" the objection states.
The parish council states that the claims from the judicial review show that there were a lot of aspects lacking in the original planning application and has asked for this to be strongly enforced by the county council.
They said: "It is our view that as nothing has changed from the original application. All four grounds of the judicial review claim, which led to SCC’s admission of unlawful determination, remain valid and 'live'.
"It must be refused."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel