Name: Terence J Land Role: Organisation: Responses: Q2:4 Section Two(B)

Name: Terence J Land

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:4 Section two(b) - Site proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Support

Q18 [If you support this proposal, please explain your reasons for this] It is immedietly adjacent to existing extractions, provision is planned for temporary traverse of the site and when extraction is complet the area is to be reinstated.

Q22 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: John Edwards

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q5:2 [An objection must relate either to the Local Plan not complying with legal requirements, or it not being sound in relation of at least one of the Test of Soundness.] Not meeting the Test of Soundness

Q6:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Health and safety wrt environment, particularly wrt young and old. Roads cannot cope with traffic now so additional HGVs is daft.

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] Locate no where near schools/houses with suitable road access that avoids adding to already huge congestion

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q19:2 [An objection must relate either to the Local Plan not complying with legal requirements, or it not being sound in relation of at least one of the Test of Soundness.] Not meeting the Test of Soundness

Q20:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q37:2 [An objection must relate either to the Local Plan not complying with legal requirements, or it not being sound in relation of at least one of the Test of Soundness.] Not meeting the Test of Soundness

Q38:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] My first statement covers all clauses. Name: Renton Righelato

Role: President

Organisation: Berkshire Ornithological Club

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q2:6 Section four: Further comments

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] No view either way

Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] These comments refer to restoration following extraction on the land near Spencer's Wood to the west of Basinstoke Road. There is potential for creating a substantial nett gain in biodiversity by restoring all or a large part of the site as wetland nature reserve. (1) The site is close to the epicentre of the nationally significant lower Kennet Nightingale (red list) population, whose preferred habitat is scrub surrounding water bodies on old gravel workings. Creation of suitable habitat would encourage growth of this threatened population. (2) Creation of reed-beds and marshy areas would provide habitat for a wide range of other scarce and charismatic bird species and much other wildlife. The Berkshire Ornithological Club, which holds an extensive database of birds in the county, collaborates with developers and landowners on conservation work of this type. Name: Nicolas Ginder

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This would damage local environment, pollute air and the river loddon and put more traffic on the already congested basingstoke road. Name: Miao Wang

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:6 Section four: Further comments

Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] This proposed site is too close to areas where small children will be occupying most of their days; this can affect people with lung issues and generally is a detriment to health. Should vehicles also deviate from the basingstoke road and use Lambs lane or Back lane this poses a safety issue as the road in its current state is barely large enough for two way traffic which causes congestion issues around school mornings and afternoons. The proposal is ludicrous and should be rejected as a suitable area for A gravel guarry. Name: Helen Coulter

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:2 Section one - Sand & Gravel Area of Search

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q2:6 Section four: Further comments

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] Withdrawal of the proposal

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] Helen Coulter Dear Sirs OBJECTION to Proposed Spencers Wood Gravel Quarry I am writing to OBJECT to the proposed Spencers Wood Gravel Quarry. The proposal is in appropriate on multiple grounds. The proposed site is on the edge of two small, quiet rural villages and will impact on all members of the communities and the environment: • Air quality will be compromised – gravel particles will travel and will affect not only the communities in general, but will affect several provisions for young children and also those for the elderly. The gravel dust generated will impact the health of everyone and the environment. • Increased and inappropriate traffic – the proposed access route via the Basingstoke Road is inappropriate and impractical. The road is poor quality, narrow and already is unable to cope with the local traffic. Large lorries will make the situation even worse, add to congestion, pollution and road erosion. This will also be dangerous for pedestrians who use the narrow pavements to walk between Spencers Wood and Swallowfield – the only option for those without transport as the bus services have been greatly reduced. • Flooding – risk of flooding in this area is a real issue. This is a Flood Zone – completely inappropriate for development of any type. • Environment & Ecology – This area is farmland with footpaths. It is also adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific interest – any development of this site will have a real environmental impact. • Ecology – This farmland is home to several protected species – these will not be able to sustain living in a gravel quarry development. • Archaeological – There are various important archaeological erections in this area; development of the site will be detrimental to this ‘Area of High Archaeological Potential’. This site is totally inappropriate for any development; a gravel quarry is ludicrous. There are too many houses proposed in Berkshire – 15,000; a gravel quarry will add to the destruction of this whole area. I OBJECT to this proposal. Yours faithfully Helen Coulter Name: Sarah Akram

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q5:1 [An objection must relate either to the Local Plan not complying with legal requirements, or it not being sound in relation of at least one of the Test of Soundness.] Not complying with legal requirements / the duty to co-operate

Q6:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] We don’t want this! It’s a small quiet area full of families, elderly and young children and you’re going to build a quarry?! I absolutely whole heartedly object to this proposal!

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection Q12:1 [An objection must relate either to the Local Plan not complying with legal requirements, or it not being sound in relation of at least one of the Test of Soundness.] Not complying with legal requirements / the duty to co-operate

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] We do not want it in our area!! The infrastructure re roads can not support this. The noise pollution and actual pollution - these are small villages - we can not accept this!

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q19:1 [An objection must relate either to the Local Plan not complying with legal requirements, or it not being sound in relation of at least one of the Test of Soundness.] Not complying with legal requirements / the duty to co-operate Q19:2 [An objection must relate either to the Local Plan not complying with legal requirements, or it not being sound in relation of at least one of the Test of Soundness.] Not meeting the Test of Soundness

Q20:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q20:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q20:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q22 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q23 [What change are you seeking?] As my reasons before!!

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q37:1 [An objection must relate either to the Local Plan not complying with legal requirements, or it not being sound in relation of at least one of the Test of Soundness.] Not complying with legal requirements / the duty to co-operate

Q38:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q38:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q38:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q39 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] As my reasons before!!

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q41 [What change are you seeking?] As my reasons before!! Name: Coral mitchell

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] No

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q22 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: J Beasant

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Steven Laflin

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The increase of heavy haulage traffic travelling through Spencers Wood. Name: Sylvia Spink

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] There is already a plan to build 15,000 houses in Grazeley which will significantly increase traffic levels in the area of Basingstoke Road. This area is already very congested especially at peak rush hour and this proposal will increase the volume of traffic and pollution still further. There are several schools and doctors surgeries in the vicinity and the risk to the health of local residents is unacceptable if this scheme were to go ahead. Name: Thomas Sloan

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This project is not necessary for our infrastructure and does not lend itself to sustainable development. As such there is no requirement for this infrastructure in the locality and thus it can only be considered to have failed the positively prepared test.

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] No

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Is not a required asset for the locality and so fails the test of being positively prepared. Ripping up a large piece of greenfield land also does not meet criteria regarding sustainable development.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q20:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q21 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] No requirement for a gravel pit and it doesn’t lend itself to sustainable development.

Q22 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] No view either way Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] This will bring untold disruption to the local area both increasing noise, pollution and traffic. It is remarkable that a plan of this scale was ever considered for an area so close to a primary school. The area does not have the necessary infrastructure to support the amount of additional heavy load vehicles required by the site. Destroying an area of greenfield land on the outside of a beautiful village is both environmentally and culturally unsustainable. Name: Sam labban

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] For it to be cancelled

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q22 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes Name: Mark Robinson

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test Name: Clive Norfolk

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I strongly believe that the proposed location of a gravel pit on the land west of Basingstoke Road does not in any way meet the test of soundness related to the impact of the proposal on the growing neighbourhood. The proposed location fails the test for the following reasons and faces very strong local opposition: Air quality - gravel and sand extraction is proven to have a detrimental impact on the air quality in the surrounding area. The proposed location is very close to a growing residential area and is in very close proximity to schools, nurseries and play areas. THis would have a negative impact on the wellbeing of children in particular but also the local population in general. The traffic impact, an increase in HGV and other vehicle movements, caused by the operation of the works at the proposed site would materially impact the local roads and accute congestion issues the area already faces. Flooding - the proposed site is within an area of flood risk, clearly an unacceptable location for the proposed works Environmental impact - the proposed location is close to a rural area and would impact on a local SSSI Ecology - The site is currently farmland, and is home to protected species including barn owls, red kites and great rested newts. There is also numerous other species that would be impacted. Name: S.Matthews

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Inappropriate setting.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Darren Houldcroft

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q6:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The challenge on effectiveness is self explanatory - there is no implementation plan at all. The currently proposed strategy has clearly not considered all possible alternatives and is a reaction to the rejection (and subsequent withdrawal of) the Bridge Farm application.Furthermore consultation is being rushed through in inappropriately short timescales (spanning a school holiday period no less) and hence the communities most affected will have limited time to review and respond. Duty to Cooperate conversations haven't been had with neighboring authorities (according to the consultation document), and assumptions have been made about the response they are likely to receive.... assumptions which haven't been validated. There is mention of the Aggregate survey taking place later this year - surely it would also be prudent to wait until that has been completed? With Regards to the Spencer's Wood site proposal: Traffic and local flooding factors seem not to have been properly taken into account; neither has the surrounding area, with a school,a nursery and a busy wedding venue all within the likely dust fall area and only given cursory mention - the SA/SEA Judgement is green even though the school is within 370m! Several statements within the proposal are clearly unsupportable - for example, 3.19 - cumulative impacts could easily be considered by simple reference to existing quarrying activities elsewhere in the borough, it is frankly absurd to say there is not enough information available to begin that consideration now. Likewise the statement that "The change in HGV traffic on the SRN would be less than 1%" is not supported by published evidence, and even cursory knowledge of local traffic is sufficient to confidently say this is out by an order of magnitude. Others have been overtaken by recent events - "No flood events in last 20 years", was anyone present during the last week?! the south end of the site was significantly underwater.

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] The Spencers Wood site needs to be removed from consideration. Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection Q12:1 [An objection must relate either to the Local Plan not complying with legal requirements, or it not being sound in relation of at least one of the Test of Soundness.] Not complying with legal requirements / the duty to co-operate

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] See previous comments

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Support

Q18 [If you support this proposal, please explain your reasons for this] It is the logical candidate, being an extension of existing quarrying activities

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q38:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q39 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] New operators *should* be judged based on a lack of track record; to do otherwise is foolish (it is inevitable that a new operator will experience "teething issues" when establishing their processes and this needs to be taken into account).

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q41 [What change are you seeking?] New operators *should* be judged based on a lack of track record Name: chris barkus

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] An utterly ridiculous proposal, much like the recently rejected quarry in Shinfield. Numerous points of contention include the roads being both too narrow and too winding for the amount of huge vehicles that would be travelling up and down them every day, this junction would be extremelly dangerous with the bends on this road. The already congested traffic from the thousands of extra houses built locally with little to no improvement to local roads. The sites locallity to the river Loddon, we cannot continue to build sites near rivers and not expect them to flood! The environment and ecology; this area of land is home to a wide variety of species of plants and animals, all which will be lost if this goes ahead. The air quality for local residents; Lambs Lane primary school is so close to this site, as well as a number of houses and numerous business units. We already have hundreds of thousands of deaths each year in the UK due to air quality, let's not add to this! On a to this proposed site, if this were to go ahead would mean we would probably have to move house at huge cost. And finally the local businesses that would be impacted, particularly The Mill House, which puts on parties, weddings etc. which i'm sure people won't want to book there if there is a quarry next door! Name: Charles Spicer

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The deleterious effect of air quality with particular reference to the proximity of Lambs Lane Primary School. Name: Christophe & Karen,Henry and Oliver Wright

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] Does not meet Air Quality,Traffic ,Flooding,Environmental,Ecology and Archaeological requirements of the area.The B3349 is not a suitable access road.Road to narrow for HGV's turning ,ill thought out.Current HGV's turning cause risk of fatal accidents .The area is a flood plain categorised as flood zones 2 and 3 not suitable for quarrying.The River Loddon is a site of Special Scientific interest.The area is a site for protected species,Barn Owl, Red Kite,Great crested Newts.Water Voles on Loddon banks.The deteriorating in Air quality is an increasingly populated area is unacceptable.Please register this as my objection to the proposed gravel extraction site. Name: Sarah Labban

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Increase air pollution, noise pollution. Increased traffic - it already takes me half an hour every morning to get from to j11 round about traffic lights!!! the lambs lane school and - we don’t want our small countryside spoiled, but more importantly, we don’t want our health affected!!! I whole heartedly object to this proposal!

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes Name: Shoaib Akram

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes Name: peter donald cleaver

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] It will increase air pollution near school. It will have serious impact on ecology of many sorts with its proximity to the river Lodden. It will be an eyesore in a very rural location. The increase of HGV traffic on an already busy narrow road will be dangerous. The location is totally unsuitable in an already overwhelmed area of rural Berkshire. Name: Mr Chris O'Connell

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I strongly object to this proposal for several reasons. 1. Proposed site proximity to Spencers Wood village, Lambs Lane primary school and the River Loddon causing noise disturbance, safety risk to school children and local residents 2. The prospect of hundreds of daily movements of large trucks through the village on the Basingstoke Road which is unsuitable for vehicles of their size and is already very congested at peak commuter times. 3. Potential damage to the local environment particularly the River Loddon and it's natural wildlife. 4. The site is subject to flooding and has twice in the last two weeks. Name: S Collingwood

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I do not believe proportionate evidence has been gathered appropriately. The impact of increased heavy goods traffic passing through Spencers Wood village via the Basingstoke Road to J11 is a safety risk, particularly for nearby recent housing developments where the roadside pathways are very narrow and inadequately close in proximity to traffic. This is a serious safety concern that is not included or justified and is a material concern for me and my family. In my view it would be highly likely that a loss of life due to increased heavy goods traffic and pedestrians on the Basingstoke Road. The impact on air quality to local residents appears poorly considered, particularly for residents living on or near the Warrens Croft development. Where the government is sensitive to air quality from particulates, this proposed development is counter to such considerations. Flooding in the local area is a frequent problem impacting main and side roads around Spencers Wood, Swallowfield and Grazeley. This proposal does not adequately consider the regularity and impact of flooding impacting local residents. As parts of the site is already categorised as Flood Zone 2 and 3a, it is not appropriate or suitable for quarrying. Environmentally, the area proposed is adjacent to SSSI and already flagged as posing a risk to water quality impacting local residents. Ecologically, the site is home to protected species and is also an area of High Archaeological Potential, which may directly impact the heritage of the area and nearby monuments and listed buildings. Name: Helen Sturdy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Proximity to lambs lane school. Noise and pollution levels. Proximity to river Loddon and protected species including Loddon pondweed, otters, possibly greater crested newts, barn owls, bats, red kites etc. The site is on a flood plain and has flooded twice this year already. Removal of topsoil and gravel will exacerbate flooding in the surrounding area. The road is not suitable for HGV vehicles as it is narrow, already very busy and often collapses in the vicinity of the site (it has to be filled and resurfaced again in the last month). Removal of a visual amenity which would join two villages (Swallowfield and Spencer’s wood). 3 schools and preschools and 2 outdoor play areas are within 1km of the site, the nearest being 370 m away. The noise and air pollution would prevent outdoor activities. Site of archaeological interest with WW2 pillboxes. Ancient woodland which is sensitive to change in air quality. The river Loddon forms a wildlife corridor allowing animals to travel safely across the area and forage for food.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Gordon sturdy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air pollution and noise pollution. There are 3 schools/preschools in close proximity, lambs land school being under 400m away. There also 2 outdoor play areas. SSI: the river Loddon runs alongside the proposed site. It is home to protected species such as otters, Loddon pondweed and possibly greater crested newts. These are sensitive to pollution. There are also badgers, bats, red kites and barn owls in the area. The river forms a wildlife corridor allowing animals to move around safely and forage for food. Removal of a visual amenity which forms a gap between the villages of Swallowfield and Spencer’s wood. The road is not suitable for HGV vehicles. It is narrow and busy. It regular collapses into large potholes and has to be repaired and that is with the current traffic load. The land is on a flood plain. Removing any gravel would exacerbate the already heavy flooding in the surrounding area. This is a site of archaeological interest which holds remnants of a chain of defences from WW2. Sncieyeoodlsnd ehich is senditive to changes in air quality.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Lee Atkins

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I was until 2015 a long term resident of Swallowfield, Chaired the Swallowfield Parish Flood Group set up after the devastating flooding in 2007 and became a member of Swallowfield Fishing Club in 1995, I remain a committee member of this club. My objections are based upon my first hand knowledge of the proposed site, it's importance to the bio diversity and ecological balance of the Loddon and Blackwater river catchments and the significant physical risks such an activity would present to the local residents and downstream communities too. Swallowfield Fishing Club have undertake substantial habitat improvement works to it's waters which start within 50 meters of the downstream boundary of the proposed works. These works have involved consented in stream habitat improvements involving the establishment of spawning reds and off line flood attenuation pools and leats for the encouragement of fish refuge points and natural breeding points. The Loddon catchment is considered to be under severe stress due to the existing permitted developments in the area already. Otters are present along our banks and we find spraints (otter faeces) and tracks all along our downstream banks, we regularly site nesting barn owls working the wide flood plain fields adjacent to our two river fisheries on the Loddon and Blackwater. Water quality is massively important to us and we have records in the near history of one of our angling members catching a sea trout from the Loddon, this is highly significant to have such a salmonid choosing to occupy these waters and makes the future of salmon running these waters a possibility albeit remote. These waters adjacent to the proposed site are therefore highly sensitive too the arrival of any new sediment or "fines" which are a by product of quarrying and extraction, either airborne local particulate or run off via road connected to river drains. In respect to the flood risk during construction there presents a real risk of adding to the high risk nature of this site, there will inevitably be several thousand square meters of hardscaping, roadways and equipment pads required in what is ciurrently an absorbent and open to air natural series of open fields which for some time the adjacent farmer has farmed sensitively with knowledge of the flood risks which inappropriate uses may bring to the farm itself and local residents. I have been involved with the commercial review of the acquisition of a commercial gravel extraction license in British Columbia, Canada. The ecological bar is set extremely high there and would not have received consent for this proposed site given it's proximity to a number of schools and early year groups in each of the abutting villages. some years ago was involved in an accident on the Basingstoke Road outside the site, I myself have narrowly avoided several incidents on this stretch of road which I consider to be a high risk road, the thought of introducing large visibility obscure vehicles to an already too narrow road is more than concerning. Cyclists using this stretch of road prevent safe vehicle passage due to double white lines for some distance, the introduction of slow moving laden 50tonne lorries will again add significantly to the existing risk profile of this particular road. I would be grateful if you can acknowledge this submission and keep me fully informed of the consultations progress. Lee Atkins

Name: Jill O'Connell

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I wish to strongly objet to the propised site for the following reasons: 1. Increase of HGV traffic on the already saturated Basingstoke Road attempting to access the M4. 2. Proximity of site to Lambs Lamb Primary school, Owls Nursery and Warrens Croft paly area. 3. Effect on air quality in general, but particularly on the schools. 4. Ecological effects on the surrounding area and in particular the River Loddon, which has flooded twice in the last two weeks. Name: lee brown

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] it will harm local wildlife. there is a primary school within 300metres of the proposed site. it will increase lorry traffic on an unsuitable, narrow road. The river Loddon, which is within metres of the proposed site, could become polluted, there has been recent activity there. Name: Carole Roberts

Role:

Organisation:

Responses: Name: Neill Smith

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The area is adjacent to the River Loddon SSI, which would be destroyed by the quarry, along with other wildlife such as Otters, Red Kites, Barn Owls. The site is beautiful open British countryside, the loss of this view would impact the whole area. The border of the site is less than 400metres from Lambs Lane Primary school, and the dust will cause health problems for the children. The border of the site is less than 300 metres , and due to the dust.

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] No

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The area is a beautiful part of the English countryside. The development would cause unacceptable dangerous traffic increases on the Basingstoke Road.

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q20:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q38:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Name: Mr Paul Mcnelly

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:2 Section one - Sand & Gravel Area of Search

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I am not only objecting to the test of soundness, I am objecting to the whole process of a sand and gravel pit in the Spencer's wood and Swallowfield area. The impact it's going to bring on the environment the air quality the traffic increase of lorries thundering down the Basingstoke Road chucking mud all over the road coming from there wheels. The southern edge of the site is a risk to flooding which in my view is not a suitable location for quarrying. Also l want to mention the Ecology of things such as the wild life around that area which will slowly disappear if this proposal goes ahead.

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] The change I am seeking is for this proposal not to go ahead at all. Name: T W Trinder

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I am objecting to this proposal for the following reasons: 1. Air Pollution - The proposed site less than 400 metres from Lambs Lane Primary School which will be contaminated by particulates in the air which could impact children's breathing 2. Flooding - The southern edge of the site alongside River Loddon is categorized as Flood Risk zones 2 and 3a and has been subject to flooding following Storms Ciara and Dennis during the past month. 3.Environment - The southern boundary of the site abuts the River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest 4.Infrastructure - Vehicular access is proposed via the B3349 (Basingstoke Road) which is totally unsuitable for the volume of HGV traffic which would be using the site 5. Visual Amenity - the proposed site fills the "Gap" between the two settlements of Spencers Wood and Swallowfield which is contrary to current building regulations I would be grateful if these comments could be considered as part of your consultation Name: Sara Creech

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This proposal will have a detrimental impact on air quality in the surrounding area (which includes a primary school, a nursery and a play area in close proximity), the HGV traffic it will generate will be substantial, creating dirt, noise and inconvenience for local residents along what is already a congested route and last but not least, the southern area of the proposed site is at risk of flooding (categorised as Flood zones 2 and 3a) so an unsuitable location for quarrying. Name: Malcolm Ward

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This proposal will create an unacceptably high volume of HGV traffic, causing air and noise pollution as well as disruption and inconvenience to local residents. Siting a quarry in this area will also undoubtedly have a detrimental impact as regards flood risk. Name: Geoffrey Blick

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Vast increase in HGV traffic on minor road. Air pollution from site machinery close to schools etc. Bottom end of site close to river so therefore huge environmental risk to wild life and fish. Unsightly works in lovely rural area between two villages. Name: Rachael Taylor

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air pollution; there are 3 schools and also play areas within 1km of the site, one being within 370m; the River Lodden has protected species including otters, Lodden pondweed, possibly greater crested newts; also on the site are badgers, barn owls, red kites; the River Lodden forms a wildlife corridor to enable animals to travel safely across the area; the site has ancient woodland which is sensitive to air pollution; it also has a WWII pill box which is part of a defence chain across the area hence of historical interest; the road is not suitable for HGV vehicles, it is too narrow and already busy and collapses into potholes regularly; the field is a visual amenity and forms a green corridor between the villages of Swallowfield and Spencers Wood. Name: Beverley Marshall-Smith

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: D W Oakley

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Site is very close to schools and will have a great environmental impact on these schools and housing in the locality by spreading particulates and fine dust into the air. Many lorry movements will be required to move the material from the site onto already crowded local and narrow roads.We already have flooding in the area and being next to the river this will also impact on the river quality and the various animals and fish that inhabit the location. Name: P A Oakley

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] There will be a detrimental affect on the environment and ecology of the area. At present the site is home to protected species such as great crested newts and water voles live on the banks of the Loddon. The air quality of the surrounding area will be adversely affected and will impact on the nearby primary school. There will also be a significant visual change to the area and further increase in the traffic travelling on narrow and busy roads. Name: chris partridge

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Name: Sian Allen

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q2:6 Section four: Further comments

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposal is not consistent with achieving sustainable development. Not justified, suitable alternatives to this rural area have not been exhausted. Not consistent with national policy as the development is not sustainable. Not met the effectiveness test as cross-boundary strategy not met.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] Air Quality: studies suggest sand and gravel have a detrimental impact on health. Three schools are within 600m (one only 350m away) and a further pre-school and play area also close by. No regard for our children’s health. Traffic: roads already at a stand-still at the best of time. The road is rural and narrow, not suitable for HGV traffic whatsoever. Flooding: Swallowfield has recently been on a high flood alert and this proposal will exacerbate the situation. The area is categorised as Flood zones 2 and 3a, it is therefore not a suitable site. Environment and ecology: the river Loddon is an SSSI and the Loddon Pondweed is very sensitive to changes in conditions. The proposed site is farmland and home to protected species. Historic site: quarrying would have a direct impact on the proposed area, it is an Area of High Archeological significance. Name: Andrew Taylor

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Proposed inclusion on to the Joint Minerals & Waste plan – Land west of Basingstoke road (B3349) – Spencers wood / Swallowfield To whom to may concern, I wish to strongly object to this proposed addition to the minerals and waste plan on the grounds of a number of planning considerations listed below: • Previous geologic surveys conducted suggest the site is not commercially viable with a gravel seam of up to 1 meter rather the required 4 to 6 meters to make the site viable. Substantial local disturbance for a site which does not justify gravel extraction on the basis of the gravel present. • The plans are inconsistent with the Highways planning policy insufficient access to the site. Based on previous studies for similar sites in the local area, 250 LGV’s and therefore 500 LGV’s movements per day would be required to operate the site. To access the proposed site via the B3349, which as double white centre lines would require an illegal manoeuvre for LCV’s; if going north bound they would need to cross the double white lines, stop and go against the flow of traffic on a twisty country road. This manoeuvre multiplied by 500 vehicle movements is highly dangerous (note fatalities cause by US armed forces driving on the wrong carriageway) and would cause havoc for the local traffic trying to go to local schools and access junction 11 of the M4 alike. • Fine particles created by the Gravel pit operation potentially causing respiratory conditions and no doubt carcinogenic, particularly among the vulnerable, children, elderly and those predisposed to such conditions. Lambs Lane Primary school is 370m of the border the site and within the recognised 400m exclusion zone, furthermore, there are a number of children’s educational intuitions within 750 metres. • The site is within a Flood zone 2 and 3a and locally known to flood on a regular basis being adjacent to the Loddon river; unnatural mass disturbance caused by gravel extraction will only adversely add to this phenomenon. • The site is adjacent to the Loddon River which is a site of special scientific interest, with the rare presence of Loddon pondweed which requires extremely clean water to flourish. • The river acts as a movement corridor for the varied rare species in the local area. The gravel pit would block this corridor deterring movement up and down stream with a detrimental effect on the local rare species. • This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between Spencers wood and Swallowfield, further urbanisation will lead to the creation of a conurbation between Three Mile Cross, Spencers wood, Swallowfield and Riseley which is to be avoided for the physical and mental wellbeing of the occupants of these villages. • The site is of archaeological interests which include the presence of WWII pillbox, anti-tank ditch and a number of listed buildings within the vicinity. On the grounds listed above I would vehemently urge all those with authority to reject the inclusion of this site into the Minerals and Waste plan for the borough at the earliest possible opportunity. Name: Michelle Taylor

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:2 Section one - Sand & Gravel Area of Search

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q2:4 Section two(b) - Site proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry

Q2:5 Section three: Past Operator Performance Policy

Q2:6 Section four: Further comments

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] No

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q38:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q38:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test Q38:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q38:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] Air Quality will go down and this site is just 370 m away from the lamb's lane primary school. wise owl's nursery is just 550 m away and particles can and will travel to these locations. Traffic will get affected in a big way and the roads are not designed for HGVs. This is a flood-prone area and we have had so many flood warnings recently. this is only going to compound the issue. the other issues are environmental damage, ecological damage, and archaeological damage Name: Chris Knight

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This proposal presents unacceptable levels of danger to the local environment. The local infrastructure is already struggling to cope and this would bring unprescedented misery to the area. A local borehole search on the British Geological Survey website shows that there it is very unlikely to be viable anyway. The uncertainty this proposal brings should be stopped as soon as possible. Name: Lucy Knight

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I have to cross the road to . I find it quite scary anyway with the bad traffic but with this gravel quarry it would make it much much worse with 250+ lorry's going in and out. We often go for walks but there is no way I would be able to do that beside the river any more.I cannot believe that the council would allow this to happen.Please don't allow this! Name: Andrew Martin

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Overall the proposed site would have a detrimental impact upon the local area with loss of countryside, additional traffic on already congested roads, further contribute to poor air quality, local residents already having a close proximity to the M4 and the A33 therefore the site proposed would increase pollution of air quality. Proposed site too close to Primary School, Nursery and children's play area. Destruction of habitats and wildlife Reducing quality of life for local people Traffic implications including: Increased risk to children when arriving and departing from school HGVs using the surrounding roads which are mostly inappropriate for larger vehicles Current congestion, the local road system is already under increasing pressure from local traffic Name: Charles and Pailthorpe

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] 1. It is recognised that there is an increased demand for mineral aggregates as stated in the Central & Eastern Berkshire Authorities, Joint Minerals & Waste Plan, Local Aggregate Assessment, December 2018 Section 6.2. 2. Hazards of dust: a. Dust particulate matter varies in size and large particles tend to settle quickly but smaller particles may be more harmful and carry great distances. If the fine particulate matter is less than 10 microns in diameter then this can be inhaled and considered to be toxic. There is now incontrovertible evidence that these tiny particulates increase the risk of hypertension (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6792364/) cardiopulmonary disease, asthma (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4465283/ ), bronchitis, emphysema and potentially premature death in those with pre-existing conditions. The elderly and the very young are most affected which is particularly relevant to the Lambs Lane primary school on the north side of the field. b. Smith et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5712860/ reported that air pollution in London adversely affects foetal growth. c. In 2005 the World Health Organization document on Air Quality Guidelines which clearly states the increased risk to health. d. Dust increases corrosion and may harm vegetation and the local fauna. 3. Traffic congestion: a. The current infrastructure of the road network south of Junction 11 and the Shinfield ‘Black Boy Pub’ roundabout is seriously congested throughout most of the day. With housing developments in Riseley and the proposed plan for Grazeley, traffic will increase hugely. To then add a large number of HGVs travelling up and down the Basingstoke Road to Junction 11 would make the traffic unbearable. Riding a bicycle safely would be impossible and the risk to children walking home on pathways from the primary school increases. b. Any increases in traffic could result in additional risks of accidents which would increase traffic load across the entire local network. The prolonged time for travel would increase traffic born pollutants into the residential areas exponentially raising health risk. c. There is no information as to the output of the proposed Quarry but on past experience in other areas it is likely to be 500,000 tons per year. Assuming the quarry operates five days per week for 50 weeks in the year this would mean 2000 tonnes of gravel or sand leaving the site each working day. A standard dumper truck capacity is around 20 tonnes so it follows that 100 loaded lorries will be leaving the site and 100mg was returning. This means 200 extra lorry movements on the Basingstoke Road each working day. Crossing the road in the built-up area will become more dangerous. 4. Noise: a. A gravel quarry will inevitably produce noise. The informative report prepared in 2008 for the UK Mineral Industry Research Organisation by academics at the Universities of Nottingham and Leeds commenting on noises and dust from quarrying: Reducing the Environmental Effect of Aggregate Quarrying has stated that the noise levels encountered from many quarries are second only to that produced by jet engines at airports. b. It is estimated that this noise level can be expected to reach distances of between 1 to 4 km from the quarry. c. There is evidence that exposure to environmental noise is associated with increased risk of hypertension, heart attack and stroke https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971384/. 5. Impact on the landscape and the natural environment: a. Risk of flooding: i. It is difficult to estimate the increased risk of flooding to the river Loddon but intuitively as that land is on the north side of the river it would potentially change the water table in such a way that flooding would increase further along the river in Swallowfield. ii. In a previous application to the Council the following statement is relevant to the current proposal - No development shall take place until a detailed design of the surface water drainage system to serve the site, demonstrating that surface water runoff will not exacerbate existing flood risk, nor pose an unacceptable risk to the quality of groundwater or surface water, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. iii. The slope of the field may be challenging for the developers and the change in the water table may cause collapse of the north side riverbank. iv. Impurities from the gravel extraction will inevitably leach into the river and could cause effects down-river. v. The risk of flooding would have negative effects on any wildlife in the area, driving out local deer, otters and badgers and have a negative effect on any bird breeding. The noise factor would also affect the fauna. vi. The effects on the water table may have unpredictable consequences on any adjacent vegetation. vii. The site is on prime agricultural land which is the best left as it is. Name: Ulrika von Post

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I’m against the proposed waste and mineral plan for Central and Eastern Berkshire - Joint Minerals & Waste Plan. There are many reasons why the plan is not sound. National Planning policy (NPPF) paragraph 182 introduces the ‘agent of change principle’ and requires that: Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed The current site known as “Land West of Basingstoke Road” is next to a wedding venue and restaurant which is unlikely to survive once the gravel extraction starts. More concerning is the closeness of the site to Lambs Lane Primary school and residential housing. In fact I believe the school is within 370m of the site which is within the air pollution range of a gravel site. The noise level expected from the site are also higher than the recommended levels for suburban homes, which highlights the unsuitability of the location. The estimated increase in traffic and congestion are further examples of the adverse effect of the site on the community. Spencer’s Wood and the surrounding areas have seen a high increase in developments in the last couple of years with significant impact on traffic volumes. Peak journeys on Basingstoke road now takes 30 min rather than estimated 5 min. The site is located on a small country road leading either through the villages of Riseley or Spencer’s Wood. An increase in large trucks on this road would also see an increased risk of accidents as Basingstoke road is the main road for school children and their parents as they make their way to Lambs Lane School. Needless to say a quarry would have irreversible negative impact on the environment and ecology of the area with the site running along a river with rare vegetation such as pond weed and newts. Otters, hedgehogs and bats are also frequently spotted in the area. In summary the plan is not consistent with national policy nor positively prepared and the quarry is not a sustainable option for the area.

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] Densely populated areas with pristine British country side are not suitable for gravel extraction.The plan should be removed. Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I’m against the proposed waste and mineral plan for Central and Eastern Berkshire - Joint Minerals & Waste Plan. There are many reasons why the plan is not sound. National Planning policy (NPPF) paragraph 182 introduces the ‘agent of change principle’ and requires that: Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed. The current site known as “Land West of Basingstoke Road” is next to a wedding venue and restaurant which is unlikely to survive once the gravel extraction starts. More concerning is the closeness of the site to Lambs Lane Primary school and residential housing. In fact I believe the school is within 370m of the site which is within the air pollution range of a gravel site. The noise level expected from the site are also higher than the recommended levels for suburban homes, which highlights the unsuitability of the location. The estimated increase in traffic and congestion are further examples of the adverse effect of the site on the community. Spencer’s Wood and the surrounding areas have seen a high increase in developments in the last couple of years with significant impact on traffic volumes. Peak journeys on Basingstoke road now takes 30 min rather than estimated 5min. The site is located on a small country road leading either through Riseley or Spencer’s Wood. An increase in large trucks on this road would also see an increased risk of accidents as Basingstoke road is the main road for school children and their parents as they make their way to Lambs Lane School. Needless to say a quarry would have irreversible negative impact on the environment and ecology of the area with the site running along a river with rare vegetation such as pond weed and newts. Otters, hedgehogs and bats are also frequently spotted in the area. In summary the plan is not consistent with national policy nor positively prepared and the quarry is not a sustainable option for the area.

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] No view either way

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] No view either way

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] It is completely bonkers to believe that quarries and suburban life go hand in hand. It is simply not sustainable and the impact on residents health and environment is too great. Name: Rahaf elgonaid

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q6:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] No

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q20:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q20:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q20:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q20:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q22 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection Q37:1 [An objection must relate either to the Local Plan not complying with legal requirements, or it not being sound in relation of at least one of the Test of Soundness.] Not complying with legal requirements / the duty to co-operate

Q38:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q38:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q38:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q38:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] This is an appalling proposal as it would impact on the residents of the area severely in many aspects including health, finances and stress. This will cause severe traffic disruption in addition to the terrible state it’s already in with the explosion of new housing developments without any improvement in the infrastructure ! The council cannot continue this irresponsible behaviour allowing endless deterioration in the area as well as surrounding neighbourhoods. The pollution impact will also be extensive and this is a cause for concern for people . The concept of having lorries/HGVs in constant flow in the area is also a safety concern for the local children who play or ride their bike in the area. This is atrocious but I wonder if the council will listen or we are just being humoured to complete complicated paperwork with very difficult technical terms in order to be seen to have consulted the public. I’m disgusted by this process in itself. Name: David Parsons

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Operation of the site would involve HGV access via the Basingstoke Road which is already overused due to the excessive and ongoing residential construction. Name: Adam Doshi

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This area is already overdeveloped and this plan would remove crucial green space and have an severe impact from the Basingstoke Road and the path along the Loddon from both a visual and environmental point of view. Name: Elizabeth Gibbs

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Our roads are already in a poor state locally and significant additional lorry movement on a daily basis will further destroy the roads. We have seen all our local fields and open walks built on, which generates a significant amount of additional traffic. We therefore do NOT need additional lorry traffic congesting the local roads. We know that quarrying will destroy the local environment, will pollute the river Loddon and affect trees and other plants and animals. One of the most important detrimental effects will be to Lambs Lane Primary School and the local air quality Name: Paul Gibbs

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I object very strongly to this proposal. Amongst other things, I believe the increased road traffic, the noise and dust on the adjacent environments including Lambs Lane School and the River Loddon will be detrimental to our existing amenities, whether visual or otherwise. I am equally fearful that the local wildlife, birds, and natural vegetation will all suffer. I do hope this proposal is rejected. Name: Brian Wood

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The site proposal for Spencers Wood fails to meet the test of soundness and should be excluded from the Joint Mineral and Waste Plan for the following reasons:- 1. Pollution Vehicles Air quality : will vary according to the weather with more photochemical smog in summer, if as predicted summers get warmer, and between late autumn and early spring insufficient daylight to warm the air thus pollutants will remain lower to the ground or fixed in fog and mist which is prevalent along the proposed site. It is well known that Diesel emissions contain harmful SO2, and PM 2.5 (Silent Killer), as well as particulates around 0.01 – 0.08 microns which can penetrate lungs tissue causing acute and chronic health problems. Various UK regulations do not appear to keep up with EU requirements or concept of Climate Emergency and thus easy for a developer to select and comply with a favourable set of outdated ‘standards’ that do not meet current scientific findings or World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines regarding pollution https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/69477/WHO_SDE_PHE_OEH_06.02_eng.pdf;sequ ence=1. Existing traffic congestion points around Spencers Wood, Three Mile Cross and Shinfield will be compounded by extra gravel lorries emitting noxious exhausts adding to current problems. Pollution From Site Air Quality: Silica is a natural substance found in varying amounts in most rocks, sand and clay. Sandstone contains more than 70% silica. The open cast operation of mineral extraction will have a consequential impact of dirt and dust particles becoming airborne. A 2017 report produced for Alberta Transportation Canada, describes the risks to human health from crystalline silica exposure caused by quarry operations. https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/documents SWCRR_Human_Health_Risks_Crystalline_Silica.PDF It quotes the International Agency for Research on Cancer, who list crystalline silica as a Group 1 (i.e. human) carcinogen that Silica dust produced by quarrying evidently brings a clear risk to residents living in the vicinity. Respiratory exposure to crystalline silica can have a range of effects, including: • Increased susceptibility to respiratory diseases, including bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, tuberculosis, and lung cancer • Increased risk of autoimmune diseases, such as scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus , kidney disease and lesions Silica dust less than 10 μm can stay airborne long enough to travel up to 1 km beyond the quarry itself. Thus potential for drifting across to dwellings around the site including the villages and Lambs Lane school. 2. Pollution Noise: Vehicles Additional HGVs will increase vehicle exhaust noise and further weaken and reduce the life of road surface thereby increasing costs for WBC council tax payers as a 4 axle, 12 ton lorry carrying a 20 ton load has a ‘damage factor’ of 16,384 compared to a 2 ton car of just 2. Pollution Noise : Site Residents endure intrusive noises at varying dB levels from the surrounding construction sites and increased traffic and varies according to weather conditions and wind direction. Site noise from excavation machinery and reversing vehicle warnings resonate and heard from significant distances. Intermittent noise is just as injurious as continual noise. 3. Additional Environmental Impact Loss of wildlife habitat despite promises to restore the land after completion the fact is for the duration of workings the habitat to wildlife is destroyed and lost forever. Where will the displaced wildlife go? Impact on flood plain Flood Risk Water supply Integrity Significant water usage in the treatment of Sand and Gravel. Where is this additional water being sourced and what impact will it have on water supplies?. Waste Water discharge - Contamination Risk where will the water be discharged after being used for the cleansing process and if that water will be mixed with chemicals to neutralise the effects of that treatment. In Fill of Quarry -Contamination Risk indications are that building materials will be used to infill the quarry yet most of the materials used in the building industry are not in themselves inert containing many impurities. What is the method of containment of infill materials being adopted to prevent leaching into surrounding areas? 4. Safety HGV movements through the villages and to and from site onto the B3349 adjacent to the Mill House Hotel, at such a narrow point will be dangerous as lorries will have to cross into the opposite lanes when accessing/leaving the site. 5. Exercise good governance of site. CEMEX fails to demonstrate effective governance at their Bramshill Quarry adjacent to A327/ B3016 Coopers Hill making road conditions hazardous year round with mud, dirt and gravel on highway and verges further compounded by a small number of speeding lorry drivers along the A327. Hants County Council seem unable to enforce compliance how will WBC? Name: Daphne Mullins

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection Name: Lewis Tennent

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road Name: H TENNENT

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: There has been shown to be an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. There are also many country lanes and dog walks nearby which will also be affected by air borne particles Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside) which would be what this proposal would result in. However, the World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Having this raised noise level in a residential area is not therefore safe. Traffic: This proposal would significantly increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. This road is already used as a 'rat run' to avoid the increasingly congested A33. Additional traffic on this road has been caused by additional housing in Three Mile Cross, Shinfield, Arborfield and Riseley such that areas of the road are breaking up with significant numbers of potholes, The structure of the road and the nearby bridge cannot withstand constant HGV traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath which is regularly used by walkers, families and dog walkers Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. As someone whose house has already been subject to flooding in 2007, causing over £70,000 of damage raising the flood risk further seems against local and national policy. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. To adversely affect this area would cause irreparable damage to the ecology and wildlife, from which it may never recover. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: Jill Pudney

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: There has been shown to be an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. There are also many country lanes and dog walks nearby which are used by a lot of people that will also be affected by air borne particles Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside) which would be what this proposal would result in. However, the World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Having this raised noise level in a residential area is not therefore safe. Traffic: This proposal would significantly increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. This road is already used as a 'rat run' to avoid the increasingly congested A33. Additional traffic on this road has been caused by additional housing in Three Mile Cross, Shinfield, Arborfield and Riseley such that areas of the road are breaking up with significant numbers of potholes, The structure of the road and the nearby bridge cannot withstand constant HGV traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath which is regularly used by walkers, families and dog walkers Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. As someone whose house has already been subject to flooding in 2007, causing over £70,000 of damage raising the flood risk further seems against local and national policy. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. To adversely affect this area would cause irreparable damage to the ecology and wildlife, from which it may never recover. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: Stuart Munro

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees .Intermediate -sized particles may travel up to 400m Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside).The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road , which is a narrow ,twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield,Swallowfield and Riseley . This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well used public footpath Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in existing built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otters spraint has been recorded, and the re are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line.Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few oated sites in Berkshire. A completely inappropriate suggestion for this countryside. Name: Kelly Williams

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I object to this on the following grounds: Diminishing air Quality will have detrimental effects on local residents /nursery school Children / wildlife /habitats The narrow country roads getting out of the will cause congestion and be dangerous - already the old Basingstoke road and Hyde end road are struggling to cope with size and quantities of vehicles. At present the individual villages have a distinction between them due to the land proposed - urbanising it in the down Of a gravel pit and what is left afterwards destroys this important distinction . The fields proposed are prone to flooding and should not be considered for gravel extraction or building on as taking more natural drainage away from an area prone to Flooding enhances the risk of this or nearby areas including residential and businesses to be susceptible to flooding. The balance Of the local ecology is very important and at the edge of this proposed site is the loddon which is home to a variety of wildlife/living habitat: barn owls that are protected : loddon pond weed which is susceptible to small Changes are just a couple of example which would be threatened by any change in the local environment.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: mike ramsay

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: Linda Carroll

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Traffic congestion in the area of the proposed site is currently an issue. This proposal would add to this situation. The B3349 is a minor road with many twists, turns and limited overtaking opportunities, in fact HGVs find it difficult to keep within the boundaries of the carriageway. The narrow pavements leave pedestrians vulnerable to passing traffic particularly from passing HGVs. It would be less safe for students attending Lambs Lane primary school to walk to school, an activity promoted by the country to improve fitness and reduce traffic. The traffic congestion on the A33, particularly during the morning and evening rush hour leads to what can only be described as a 'car park'. Additional traffic will effectively cut of our access to the M4. The reduction in air quality caused by the increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites and the dust caused by quarrying is a concern for health effects as small particles can be breathed in. Larger particles can damage property and foliage. The close proximity of children's educational facilities is of particular concern when even intermediate sized particles can travel up to 400 metres. Further health issues for the local community can be caused by the increase in noise pollution. In the UK currently flooding has become a real issue and anything which could add to this situation in an area should be avoided. The proposed quarry site is currently prone to flooding and it is obvious that any hard standing areas, that will obviously be required at the site, will reduce land available for absorption and increase the likelihood of flooding in areas along the River Loddon. Future changes to the natural drainage system are currently unknown and impossible to predict. The southern edge of the proposed site borders the River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest, a very sensitive ecosystem acting as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife which includes protected species of Great Crested Newts, Barn Owls and Red Kites. Wildlife living in the area include water voles, badgers and otters. The Loddon Pondweed is sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants so could be affected. A well used public footpath borders the site. The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. The proposed site is a belt of green farmland separating Shinfield, Three Mile Cross, Spencer's Wood, Swallowfield and Riseley. It is important to maintain this to retain the individual character of the villages. Name: Jane Hall

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Name: Rodney Carroll

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] In the UK currently flooding has become a real issue and anything which could add to this situation in an area should be avoided. The proposed quarry site is currently prone to flooding and it is obvious that any hard standing areas, that will obviously be required at the site, will reduce land available for absorption and increase the likelihood of flooding in areas along the River Loddon. Future changes to the natural drainage system are currently unknown and impossible to predict. The southern edge of the proposed site borders the River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest, a very sensitive ecosystem acting as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife which includes protected species of Great Crested Newts, Barn Owls and Red Kites. Wildlife living in the area include water voles, badgers, and otters. The Loddon Pondweed in the river is sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants so could be affected by the proposed works. A well used public footpath also borders the site. Traffic congestion in the area of the proposed site is currently an issue and this proposal would make the situation worse. The B3349 is a minor road with many twists, turns and limited overtaking opportunities, in fact HGVs find it difficult to keep within the boundaries of the carriageway. The narrow pavements leave pedestrians vulnerable to passing traffic particularly from passing HGVs. This could make it more dangerous for the young students attending Lambs Lane primary school to walk to school, an activity promoted by the country to improve fitness and reduce traffic. The traffic congestion on the A33, particularly during the morning and evening rush hour causing significant traffic delays and other proposed development will make this worse. Additional traffic from this development which could be hundreds of trips a day will effectively cut of our access to the M4. The reduction in air quality caused by the increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites and the dust caused by quarrying is a concern for health effects as small particles can be breathed in. Larger particles can damage property and foliage. The close proximity of children's educational facilities is of particular concern when even intermediate sized particles can travel up to 400 metres. Further health issues for the local community can be caused by the increase in noise pollution. The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti- tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. The proposed site is also a belt of green farmland separating Shinfield, Three Mile Cross, Spencer's Wood, Swallowfield and Riseley. It is important to maintain this to retain the individual character of the local villages. Name: Pauline Knight

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] the proposed site and know it would be the wrong place to have large lorries coming in/out onto such a dangerous road. .People don't stick to the speed limit and can go up to 60-70 mph and that is no exaggeration. The Swallowfield bends are notorious and it would be an accident waiting to happen.The noise,dust and pollution is a factor too. Name: Colin James

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Villages - we don't want further urbanization Traffic - roads aren't designed for the HGV's and there is already too much traffic on Basingstoke road Noise - noise polution will exceed the average UK countryside levels

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: sian laflin

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] close to local and ever growing housing. Main road through village extra lorries would cause chaos. mess caused by extraction would affect local community. Close to local primary school. Name: Ian Skeet

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:2 Section one - Sand & Gravel Area of Search

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I’m against the proposed waste and mineral plan for Central and Eastern Berkshire - Joint Minerals & Waste Plan. There are many reasons why the plan is not sound. National Planning policy (NPPF) paragraph 182 introduces the ‘agent of change principle’ and requires that: Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed. The current site known as “Land West of Basingstoke Road” is next to a wedding venue and restaurant which is unlikely to survive once the gravel extraction starts. More concerning is the closeness of the site to Lambs Lane Primary school and residential housing. In fact I believe the school is within 370m of the site which is within the air pollution range of a gravel site. The noise level expected from the site are also higher than the recommended levels for suburban homes, which highlights the unsuitability of the location. The estimated increase in traffic and congestion are further examples of the adverse effect of the site on the community. Spencer’s Wood and the surrounding areas have seen a high increase in developments in the last couple of years with significant impact on traffic volumes. Peak journeys on Basingstoke road now takes 30 min rather than estimated 5min. The site is located on a small country road leading either through Riseley or Spencer’s Wood. An increase in large trucks on this road would also see an increased risk of accidents as Basingstoke road is the main road for school children and their parents as they make their way to Lambs Lane School. Needless to say a quarry would have irreversible negative impact on the environment and ecology of the area with the site running along a river with rare vegetation such as pond weed and newts. Otters, hedgehogs and bats are also frequently spotted in the area. In summary the plan is not consistent with national policy nor positively prepared and the quarry is not a sustainable option for the area.

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes Q9 [What change are you seeking?] There should be no gravel extraction in suburban areas as explained in my objection above

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] 1.There are 3 schools for children under 12 in the vicinity, the particulates not only from sand and gravel extraction but also increased volume of HGV vehicles in the area could adversely effect the health of some of the children attending these schools. 2. The volume of traffic on the B3349 is already very high, with severe congestion not only at peak times with traffic accessing the M4. The proposed access onto the B3349 for the HGVs would entail them having to cross the central double white line, therefore obstructing traffic coming from the other direction. The road is totally unsuitable for these types of vehicles, the road is twisting and narrow and only has one single narrow pavement which is used regularily by pedestrian walking between Spencer's Wood and Swallowfield. 4. The southern edge of the site is classified as flood zone 2 and 3a, once roads and hard landscaping is laid this will increase the possibility of more flooding as there will be nowhere for the excess water to drain. Name: Isla Beecham

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Name: Mr Michael Bunn

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Impact on air quality. Creating health problems for local residents including the young and vulnerable. The proposed quarry is too close to schools and nurseries (Lambs Lane Primary School is within 370 metres. Given the area is currently undergoing mass house building the Council would be failing in it’s duty of care for residents by allowing a polluting industry to be established adjacent to a residential area and schooling. Secondly, the pollution would be magnified by the increase in heavy goods vehicles constantly whipping up the dust on ajoining roads. Finally, the road network in this area is already at capacity on e already agreed housing is taken into account and would not be able to cope with either the increase in traffic, nor the wear and tear that quarry vehicles would impose on roads designed for lighter vehicles. Authorities need to decide to ensure gravel extraction is conducted away from residential areas. There is little point in attempting to cut back on diesel vehicles to then push aggressive, abrasive minerals into the air in residential areas. Name: Janice Thomas

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] In my opinion the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness on several counts: 1. Traffic. The proposed access to the site from the B3349 is totally unsuitable. The road has double white lines and can be quite dangerous with the bends so getting both in and out of the site would not only increase the traffic, but be a danger to the current usage of this relatively busy main road. It would cause major congestion throughout the day. It is also not clear as to how lorries could get out to turn left to go to the M4 without crossing over the double white lines onto the unsuspecting traffic travelling South. To add traffic lights to enable to them to do so would be qually dangerous on a bendy road. 2)Noise: There would be constant noise during the day causing major disturbance not only to those properties adjacent to the fields but to a far wider population in the adjoining villages. 3) Air quality: There is evidence that the dust from the excavations could travel as far as the local primary schools and hence be a serious concern to the health of the pupils and staff. And, of course, to anyone else living in close proximity. It could lead to the closer of the family run hotel, The Mill House, as how could they expect people to visit, especially in the summer when they hold weddings in the marquee. The noise would also mean that they could no longer carry out their long standing business that they have built up over many years. As well as the above my understanding is that the depth of minerals that could be extracted is minimal and far less than would be worth the while of setting up to do so. And, finally, this country site is home to a wide variety of wildlife, both birds and animals. These should be protected at all costs. I feel very strongly that a stop must be put to taking this proposal any further. Name: Tracy Langlands

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: there will inevitably be dust pollution, which is not acceptable particularly given this site is very close to schools and pre-schools; Noise: as above, the site is too close to schools and pre- schools so will cause disruption and health risk; Traffic: heavy vehicles will use the narrow and twisting access road which is not appropriate for this type of use, and will be a danger to oncoming traffic at the narrowest points, and to pedestrians using the narrow footpath; Villages: this development will effectively create a link to the distinct villages currently separated by a valuable green belt, which will spoil the character of the area; the site is currently surrounded by a footpath that is used frequently by residents; Flooding: this area is already prone to flooding, and this development will increase flood risk; Ecology: this area is a sensitive ecosystem that is already under pressure from recent developments, and this development will further threaten wildlife and flora; Archaeology: the site is too close to listed buildings and a scheduled monument, and is in an area of High Archaeological Potential. Name: Christopher Bebbington

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Bringing disruption to local community ..added pollution....Increased heavy traffic on infrastructure not worthy of taking it ....increased flood risk....excessive noise....and all too line people's pockets that dont live or contribute to this area

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] Consideration for those that live and pay to live here .....the ecology and wildlife and the continuous tipping up the countryside for profit Name: Dr Hilary Fraser

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] 1. Quarrying on this site will have a detrimental impact on the air quality in the surrounding area. The site is 370 m away from Lambs Lane Primary School, which means it is highly likely that particles from the site will be deposited over the school, affecting the health of pupils and staff. There are two further facilities for young children in the area - Wise Owls Nursery, which is 550m away, and Swallowfield pre-school, which is 750 m away, and a play area for local children which is 600m away. 2. There would be a significant increase in heavy vehicle traffic on to the B3349 Basingstoke Road. This road is narrow, with many bends, and a dangerous junction with Back Lane , just north of the site, where sightlines are poor. Heavy vehicles would be moving through Spencers Wood and Three Mile Cross, where traffic is already causing problems with congestion and safety. 3. Flooding is a regular problem in the area, and the southern edge of the proposed quarrying area is classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. The likely impact of quarrying activity on the site would be to increase the possibility of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, affecting properties in an area already at risk of flooding. 4. The ecological impact of quarrying would be detrimental to wildlife and plant life associated with the river and the surrounding area. There is a strong possibility that toxins could enter the river and cause pollution. A public footpath runs along the southern edge of the proposed site, which is used by local walkers ( ). 5. To allow quarrying on this site would be to allow the introduction of an industrial process into an area of farmland which acts, in effect, as a green belt. The rural character of the area, which is already under threat, would be lost, to the detriment of the health and well-being of all the residents of Swallowfield, Spencers Wood and surrounding settlements. Name: Wendy Bailey

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I am worried about the effect this will have on the distinction between the villages surrounding the site plus the area is prone to flooding and further roadways etc will increase this risk. In addition there will be increased traffic and this more noise. Name: Brian Bailey

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposal of building a gravel pit will create more traffic congestion in an area that can ill afford it, together with increased traffic noise and noise pollution from the quarry itself. It will also require more roadways to accommodate the increased traffic in an area that is prone to flooding therefore increasing this risk to the surrounding villages. Name: Clare Goldstone

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q6:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q6:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I objected to the Farley Farm Gravel Extraction plans and my objections here are the same. This is a health risk that is too close to local schools and community and cannot be supported bybthe let me cal infrastructure. Please see final comments

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] I want this proposal to be fully rejected

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I objected to the Farley Farm Gravel Extraction plans and my objections here are the same. This is a health risk that is too close to local schools and community and cannot be supported bybthe let me cal infrastructure. Please see final comments

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] I want this proposal to be fully rejected

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q20:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q20:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q20:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q20:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q21 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I objected to the Farley Farm Gravel Extraction plans and my objections here are the same. This is a health risk that is too close to local schools and community and cannot be supported bybthe let me cal infrastructure. Please see also see final comments

Q22 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q23 [What change are you seeking?] I want this proposal to be fully rejected

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q38:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q38:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q38:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test Q38:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q39 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I objected to the Farley Farm Gravel Extraction plans and my objections here are the same. This is a health risk that is too close to local schools and community and cannot be supported bybthe let me cal infrastructure. Please see final comments

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q41 [What change are you seeking?] I want this proposal to be fully rejected

Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire Name: Marni Goldstone

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q6:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q6:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I objected to the Farley Farm plans and my view my have not changed we do not want this health hazard near our schools or local communities

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] I want the proposal to be fully rejected

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I objected to the Farley Farm plans and my view my have not changed we do not want this health hazard near our schools or local communities

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] I want this proposal fully rejected

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q20:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q20:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q20:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q20:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q21 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I objected to the Farley Farm plans and my view my have not changed we do not want this health hazard near our schools or local communities

Q22 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q23 [What change are you seeking?] I want this proposal to be fully rejected

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q38:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q38:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q38:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q38:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Q39 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I objected to the Farley Farm plans and my view my have not changed we do not want this health hazard near our schools or local communities

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q41 [What change are you seeking?] I want this proposal to be fully rejected

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q6:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q6:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] We didnt want a Gravel Extraction (Farley Farm) in Shinfield and we don't want one in Spencers wood for all of thr same reasons

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] I want this proposal to be fully rejected

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] We didnt want a Gravel Extraction (Farley Farm) in Shinfield and we don't want one in Spencers wood for all of thr same reasons

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] I want this proposal to be fully rejected

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q20:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q20:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q20:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q20:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q21 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] We didnt want a Gravel Extraction (Farley Farm) in Shinfield and we don't want one in Spencers wood for all of thr same reasons

Q22 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q23 [What change are you seeking?] I want this proposal to be fully rejected

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q38:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q38:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q38:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q38:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Q39 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] We didnt want a Gravel Extraction (Farley Farm) in Shinfield and we don't want one in Spencers wood for all of thr same reasons

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q41 [What change are you seeking?] I want this proposal to be fully rejected

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This is an area of outstanding beauty. Very close to a school with a road system which would be unsuitable for the large number of heavy lorry movements. Name: J. Stam

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:2 Section one - Sand & Gravel Area of Search

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q2:6 Section four: Further comments

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Locations that are currently being put forward are residential areas and no tests are being taken into account of the damage that will be inflicted on the communities, wildlife and people in the areas being affected negatively.

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] Seek gravel extraction locations outside of residential areas!

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Objecting under the following reasons: Too close to residential properties and schools, no consideration for the impact to people’s health that can be caused by the extraction Will cause damage to the flood areas, too close to river Loddon and the flooding caused by rainfall in the area will flood and impact more houses. No consideration or evidence provided to the ensure welfare of the local wildlife and too much damage to natural green space The route from the proposed site to local motorway cannot take any additional traffic, also this will impact and cause issues to roads and walkways with mud and debris falling from the trucks, these routes are used by children walking to school and will cause this to be more hazardous and harm. The proposed site is located right next to a hotel/restaurant and will destroy the business and area.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] Only locations not in residential areas should be located for possible extraction. Stop and reject any proposals for gravel extraction in residential areas.

Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] Stop allowing proposed sites in residential areas! Do better research into the impact to the area eg flood planes, wildlife, impact to peoples health, no sites near schools! Name: William Stam

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:2 Section one - Sand & Gravel Area of Search

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] No

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Andrew Dicker

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I am sick and tired of the damage to our local archeology - WW2 pillbox - ongoing damage to our local ecology and RIDICULOUS constant urbanisation of your local area. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH Name: Jeffrey Oakes

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The air quality will be compromised by an increase in suspended particulate matter which is a danger to health and this proposed site is very close to Lambs Lane Primary School, residential property and a children's play area. The proposal would increase traffic congestion to the B3349 which is a narrow twisting road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. Traffic is already often gridlocked through Spencers Wood and more heavy goods vehicles accessing the A33 will cause further problems as this road is already overwhelmed at peak times. Name: Neil ellison

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The surrounding area is has and continues to be developed beyond recognition, we all are so fed up with construction traffic in our once quiet villages. Our roads have not been upgraded to handle normal traffic let alone numerous heavy earth moving lorries. This area has suffered enough without the addition of this proposed gravel extraction. Not to mention the local air quality which is undoubtedly going to suffer. The fact Wokingham borough council seem oblivious to the effects all this developing is having on once small villages just goes to prove that they are just interested in all the financial gain that comes with over developing. I strongly object to ANYMORE development be it housing gravel site or anything else.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Gillian Oakes

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This site is too close to a primary school, residential properties and a children's play area. With the increase in suspended particulate matter this definitely represents a danger to health. The quarry entrance would be onto the B3349 - this is a narrow winding country lane with a double white line and single narrow pavement and it would be dangerous to add more HGVs through the bottleneck that Spencers Wood has now become. The B3349 cannot cope with the existing level of traffic and this additional HGV traffic would cause further problems, especially for young children and families walking home from school. Name: mrsminter

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] toonnearloddoncourtparkhomesfortheelderly Name: Mr I Mayoh

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I object because of impacts on increase in volume and unsuitability of traffic due to inadequate road infrastructure for this type of activity. Also, I object due to the impacts from noise and air pollution that will be generated. Name: Nicola Benham

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] 1) air quality - the quarry will produce dust particles that can be breathed in. This is detrimental to health. A primary school is only 350m away, plus a nursery, play area and preschool. Putting a gravel out in this location shows a complete disregard for the health and safety of the community's children. 2) quarries will increase noise pollution. Guidance for this site says noise levels will be 55db with temporary levels of 70db.The WHO defines 55db as a level which can cause health issues for a community. 3) this site will increase traffic congestion from hgvs on the Basingstoke road, which is not only irresponsible in terms of air pollution but could also endanger pedestrians. It is impossible for a large vehicle to join the b3349 towards the m4 without crossing the double white lines into the busy oncoming traffic, thus increasing the likelihood of collisions. 4) the site is prone to flooding (southern edge of site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a). By adding inevitable hardscaping and roadways for the quarry, the area's ability to absorb water will be compromised, thus increasing flooding elsewhere along the river Loddon, including built up areas. 5) the river Loddon site of special scientific interest runs along the southern edge of this site. This is a very sensitive ecosystem and acts as a movement corridor for various protected species, such as barn owls, red kites and Great crested newts. 6) the site is also an area of high archaeological potential. Building a quarry here shows a disregard for the history of this community. There is a ww2 pillbox and antitank ditch on the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along a historic defence line.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Denise Grant

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The air quality is bad enough in this area if you are an asthma sufferer it would be unbearable and possibly life threatening. Certainly quality of life will be affected. The traffic will increase and it will be back to when we had no bypass and the lorries thundering up and down the Basingstoke Rd, as I feel that this would be a backward step! and it is already at breaking point. There will be an increase of noise pollution and I feel it would cause health issues. We are already losing our appeal as a village as it is getting bigger and bigger we do not want to be one big town! There is enough flooding already and it will only get worse if this gravel pit goes ahead

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] Do not build this gravel pit Name: Christopher Benham

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] which is very close to the proposed site. I have a number of objections to the proposed plan. Air quality - dust from sites like this are detrimental to air quality. Lambs Lane Primary School which is less 400m from the site. This is a completely unacceptable risk to the health of the children attending. isn't much further away and Noise/traffic - this is a very quiet area and we do not want this spoiled with noise from operating the quarry or increased number of HGVs on the roads (adding to what is already a busy road the Basingstoke Road). Ecological - there are many protected species who live in/around the river loddon to the south of the proposed site including barn owls, red kites and great crested newts. All would undoubtedly be negatively effected by the quarry's operations. Historical - the proposed site encompasses a WW2 pillbox and anti tank ditch which form part of a defence line extending out to near where we live (I have recently visited another pill box which is here and it is important they are conserved). It is likely these would be destroyed/damaged by quarry operations.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Jan G Matthews

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This proposed site is one with a mass of natural ecology. There is already enough air polution from the growing housing and associated vehicles without having large HGV diesel lorries moving day in and day out. The Basinstoke Road B3349 is suffering from the increase in traffic with wear and tear within the fabric even after recent pot hole filling and sections of resurfacing. The extra noise will harm the local area which again is already being affected from the A33 bypass and the ever increasing amount of traffic. The B3349 is also very narrow in carriage way and with very narrow pavements which also are not continuous. The potential flooding that could result from destroying the natural flood plain of the area is a large threat to housing and roads around the River Loddon. This is not a sensible site to consider for a gravel pit extraction site. Name: Anthony Simpson

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I wish to object to this application for the following reasons: 1. Traffic – There is already a traffic problem in this area and the addition of this gravel plant dramatically increases the number of lorries in the area. The B3349 Basingstoke Road and other roads in this area (such as Hyde End Road) simply could not handle this type of traffic. The B3349 Basingstoke Road is a long, windy road and is far too narrow for trucks to pass safely. It is already too busy and regularly has traffic jams in Spencers Wood and up towards the A33 junction in Three Mile Cross which is the link to the M4 motorway. If the plan is to get to Junction 11 of the M4 using this route then it is simply not an option as this would cause gridlock in the area. Travelling south on the B3349 Basingstoke Road is an even longer stretch of narrow, twisting road which mean going through the village of Riseley. Again, this would lead to busy junctions that simply could not cater for this traffic. For these reasons alone it should be clear that this application is a non-starter and is obviously inappropriate for this area. 2. Air Quality - The addition of such a plant would create a lot of dust in the area which would significantly affect the health and quality of life of local residents. This is of particular concern as there is a local school, a children’s nursey, a pre-school and a play area nearby and this would contribute to respiratory problems in young children. 3. Wildlife - The size and scale of this application would have a detrimental effect on local wildlife in the area. This includes protected species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites, and Great Crested newts. Badgers and Water Voles are known to live in the area and Sea Trout have been identified in the water. 4. Character – This particular area is a good example of the character of the local area. Spencers Wood, Three Mile Cross, Riseley and Shinfield have undergone a massive change in recent years which has resulted in a huge increase in housing in the area. It is clear that no more development should take place as the area cannot handle it and we must keep our remaining farmland. This proposal is against the character of the area and does not meet with our local core policy. 5. Noise Pollution - The size and scale of this application would cause significant noise pollution in what is a residential area. 6. Size - The size and scale of this application is completely inappropriate for this area and is contrary to many policies in the core strategy and structure plan. The area has seen a significant increase in housing in the last few years and this proposal is far too close to this residential area. It is simply unacceptable to consider risking the health of the local residents (especially children) in this area. This application would have a significant negative effect on this area and I ask that it is refused for the reasons listed above. Name: Mr Liam Matthews

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Adding to the excessive local area noise, machinary and HGV traffic, air pollution, ecology impact on the area, visual eyesore an appalling proposal for this gravel pit siting. HGV lorries moving along a very narrow and busy B3349. Local impact of air dust pollution and HGV diesel fumes on the local primary school in Lambs Lane. Just too close to the local residential areas for safety, noise, and pollution. Name: Kirstie Dunsmoir

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Too close to local school. Residential area.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Mr Alistair Walker

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Having lived here in Spencers Wood for 30 plus years now and bringing up a family we have seen and felt the impact of recent housing development that has blighted our surrounding villages. The thought of this kind of site being suggested just down the road from where we live is worrying to say the least. Our roads have suffered enough in the last years or so with the increase in traffic, poor maintenance and increase of pot holes that are damging to our cars and dangerous to other road users. A gravel pit would mean that the roads would then become congested with HGV's, whose impact on the road's surfaces would be even more damaging plus an increase to the safety of other road users in general. More traffic would also create more noise, and there would be noise pollution generated from the quarrie site itself. The air quality would also be compomised with dust created from any large scale digging which would carry over a large area on the breeze and more so during drier months. The proposed site is an area of natural beauty with a public footpath that runs nearby and is a frequently used route for all manner of exercising pastimes, walking, running etc. Name: Kate Carey

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] 1. Traffic & road quality - none of the pop up developments, proposed Grazely Village development or development planned sites nor do this proposed gravel pit site consider current volume data on journeys travelled by car, lorry & bus routes. I to the M4 itself, travelling along the Old Basingstoke Road often tales 45 minutes during rush hours 7am to 9am. The proposed site would access the main road on a blind corner where the road has double white lines, it would be impossible for a lorry to turn towards the M4 without crossing these lines . The road is bendy and constantly in poor repair. 100s of additional lorry journeys departing and returning to the proposed site would increase congestion, increase damage to the road, increase danger to pedestrians using an already too narrow foot path between the proposed site and Back Lane. The current speed limit is 40mph. Lorries travelling at this speed cause doors & windows to shake. Increased lorry traffic increases risk of damage to local neighbourhood properties and to the 3 listed buildings .near to the site. 2. Noise & Air Quality - The working hours would be Monday to Saturday with noise a constant impact to the local villages. The quarry increases risk that World Health Organisation guidelines decibel limits would regularly be breached causing health issues for local community & any children who attend Lambs Lane School which is only 370m from the proposed site or the play areas and Swallowfield PreSchool which are also nearby. Fine dust particulates may be breathed in by those of us living nearby cause health issues, dust clouds and soiling, larger particulates damage property & trees by staining. These particulates will pollute the river running alongside the proposed site. The Mill House is a wedding venue sited adjacent to the proposed site. What bride would want to hold their wedding or family hold a christening celebration immediately next door to a noisy, dusty and potentially polluting gravel pit. A business, employing local village staff risks going out of business. 3. Villages & Ecology - The proposed land is the current green belt between two settlements, placing a gravel pit or housing in this location would lead to a single large conurbation capturing Swallowfield, Spencers Wood, Shinfield & Three Mile Cross. Planning has already been rejected on Lodden Court Caravan Park for this reason. There are public footpaths bordering the site which also has a wedding venue & a river running alongside the boundary. The river is home to Lodden Pondweed, newts & water voles. I have seen red kites, a barn owl at least 3 species of bat whilst walking these paths. The gravel pit places the river at risk of chemical pollutants which would destroy this sensitive ecosystem. 4. Flooding - The site is prone to flooding every Late Autumn/Winter. Ground water pours off the land at Loddon Court Farm, runs down Lambs Lane like a river before joining the proposed land and going into the river. Flooding here has got worse since 2 housing developments West of Spencers Wood have been built & Lambs Lane a boundary lane has been washed away in places by the sheer force of the water. As this site is currently farmland there is no risk to life or damage to local properties. Placing a gravel pit on this site would disrupt the natural drainage system. creating issues (maybe even for the gravel pit itself if it were there) but would certainly result in ground water being redirected causing flooding in areas further along the River Lodden. Although 2020 has been an extremely wet year, I do have some film footage of the recent issues caused by ground water flooding. Name: Anthony Hockham

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Mining this close to a school will have a major effect on the health of the children with the dust particles that will be emitted into the atmosphere, which is itself a form of pollution. There will be increased noise which will cause health issues within the community. The roads around this area already can’t handle the increased traffic from local over development adding in an increase with lorries will also damage roads, let alone the fact that the local roads are not wide enough for pavements as it stands. I often cycle on these roads and it’s extremely dangerous with the traffic already on the road adding extra lorries and it’s only a matter of time before there’s a death. With the climate as it is these fields act as flood plain, mining this area will only push flooding into local villages and be detrimental to the community.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Ekaterina Hand

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposed quarry will cause an increase in air and noise pollution in the area. All the local roads are congested already and this proposal will increase traffic congestion from HGVs travelling to and from the quarry site on Basingstoke Road, around Junction 11 of the M4 and all local roads which are not wide enough to cope with that volume of HGVs. The proposed quarry will be devastating for the local wildlife and ecology. In addition to all those points, proposed site is prone to flooding and will result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Name: William Carey

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] 1. Villages & Ecology - The proposed land is the current green belt between two settlements, placing a gravel pit or housing in this location would lead to a single large conurbation capturing Swallowfield, Spencers Wood, Shinfield & Three Mile Cross. Planning has already been rejected on Lodden Court Caravan Park for this reason. There are public footpaths bordering the site which also has a wedding venue & a river running alongside the boundary. The river is home to Lodden Pondweed, newts & water voles. I have seen red kites, a barn owl at least 3 species of bat whilst walking these paths. The gravel pit places the river at risk of chemical pollutants which would destroy this sensitive ecosystem. 2. Flooding - The site is prone to regular flooding every Late Autumn/Winter. Ground water pours off the land at Loddon Court Farm, runs down Lambs Lane like a river before joining the proposed land and going into the river. Flooding here has got worse since 2 housing developments West of Spencers Wood have been built & Lambs Lane a boundary lane has been washed away in places by the sheer force of the water. As this site is currently farmland there is no risk to life or damage to local properties. Placing a gravel pit on this site would disrupt the natural drainage system. creating issues (maybe even for the gravel pit itself if it were there) but would certainly result in ground water being redirected causing flooding in areas further along the River Lodden 3. Noise & Air Quality - The working hours would be Monday to Saturday with noise a constant impact to the local villages. The quarry increases risk that World Health Organisation guidelines decibel limits would regularly be breached causing health issues for local community & any children who attend Lambs Lane School which is only 370m from the proposed site or the play areas and Swallowfield PreSchool which are also nearby. Fine dust particulates may be breathed in by those of us living nearby cause health issues, dust clouds and soiling, larger particulates damage property & trees by staining. These particulates will pollute the river running alongside the proposed site. The Mill House is a wedding venue sited adjacent to the proposed site. What bride would want to hold their wedding or family hold a christening celebration immediately next door to a noisy, dusty and potentially polluting gravel pit. A business, employing local village staff risks going out of business. 4.Traffic & road quality - none of the pop up developments, proposed Grazely Village development or development planned sites nor do this proposed gravel pit site consider current volume data on journeys travelled by car, lorry & bus routes. I to the M4 itself, travelling along the Old Basingstoke Road often tales 45 minutes during rush hours 7am to 9am. The proposed site would access the main road on a blind corner where the road has double white lines, it would be impossible for a lorry to turn towards the M4 without crossing these lines . The road is bendy and constantly in poor repair. 100s of additional lorry journeys departing and returning to the proposed site would increase congestion, increase damage to the road, increase danger to pedestrians using an already too narrow foot path between the proposed site and Back Lane. The current speed limit is 40mph. Lorries travelling at this speed cause doors & windows to shake. Increased lorry traffic increases risk of damage to local neighbourhood properties and to the 3 listed buildings .near to the site. Name: Alexander Hand

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposed quarry will be devastating for the local wildlife and will cause harm for all the animals living in the the River Loddon and nearby fields. It will increase air and noise pollution in the area. The proposed quarry will increase traffic congestion from HGVs travelling to and from the quarry site on Basingstoke Road, around Junction 11 of the M4 and all local roads which are not wide enough to cope with that volume of HGVs. The proposed quarry site is prone to flooding and will result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Name: Philip Hand

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Increased noise pollution in a small village, significant impact to local businesses and schools. Increased traffic and reduced air quality. There are huge housing developments in this area and no changes to infrastructure, this will create an extreme impact on the local community with increased traffic in an already over populated village.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] Reject the planning proposal Name: Andrew Jones

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Detrimental impact to air quality in proximity to schools and nurseries. Increase in noise, traffic congestion, impacts to local ecology / archeology and increased likelihood of flooding.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] To site the quarry elsewhere or not at all Name: Jeanette Jones

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Laura Sargent

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air quality: Increase in suspended particles of dust, which can travel farther than the distance of the local primary school, Lambs Lane, which is 370m away from the site. Concern over deposits of dust in the surrounding area, including residential homes/gardens. Loss of countryside: There is a walking path on the edge of the perimeter that is used regularly, part of the attraction of which is the green field adjoining it. This will also impact local business, with The Mill House adjoining the field and footpath. It would also see the loss of green space between the villages of Spencers Wood and Swallowfield. Noise: Increase in noise will adversely impact the local community, both residential and business. Environment: The River Loddon runs right next to the site, which is an area of Special Scientific Interest and home to a variety of wildlife. I understand there are protected species inhabiting the area, which would be significantly disturbed as a result of the planned activities. Traffic: The Basingstoke Road is already significantly affected by traffic, with long queues at morning rush hour seeing a 2 minute drive turn into a 30 minute drive. Additional HGV traffic will only add to this issue, as well as damaging the road surfaces. The HGVs will struggle to navigate the twisting country road that is narrow and has sharp bends between the proposed site and Lambs Lane. Flooding: The River Loddon is prone to flooding in certain areas, including at Swallowfield, and with the absence of plants on the field and additional hard surfaces for HGVs to drive on, the likelihood is that increased surface water will drain into the Loddon and may increase flood risk elsewhere along the River. Name: Ingrid Tennent

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The infrastructure of the area cannot even cope with existing traffic and the roads are in a deplorable state at present. This could cause serious additional flooding which is prevalent in the adjoining area and villages already. This would affect the street scenes and be detrimental to the Ecological and archaelogical qualities of the area. Name: H TENNENT

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The roads cannot take extra traffic and anyone not believing this can travel on these roads, especially between 7.30 and 9.30 am, when it will probably take you 30-40 minutes to get from this site to Junction 11 of the M4. Local Planning developments are being refused because of unsustainable infrastructure so it is important that permission for this quarry is not allowed as it would cause total chaos, and also wreck the roads which are already full of potholes. It would have an impact on the ecology of the area, with the river Loddon and its sensitive ecosystem, including red kites, great crested newts and barn owls. The archeological potential of the area would also be endangered if this scheme was to go ahead. Name: Paul Wheeler

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] There are residential properties adjacent and the gravel extraction site will detrimentally affect air quality, noise and traffic intensity. The site itself is prone to flooding and the impact of the site, hardscaping and roads will add to the probability of flooding elsewhere in the area in ways which today cannot be predicted or mitigated against.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Richard Aspin

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Objecting based on the following: 1) Reduction in air quality - particularly as this is a residential area with a number of schools nearby. 2) Ecological - disturbance and harm to wildlife, including protected species. 3) Flooding -the area proposed is at risk of flooding and works would reduce the capacity for water absorbtion. 4) Traffic - large vehicles are already causing problems in the area (road damage and accident risk) & the proposed routes are not suitable for increased HGV flow. There is also no guarantee that lorries will stick to the proposed routes to the risk will spread to other local roads too. 5) Villages - the area has already been subject to huge development volumes and change recently. There is no more capacity for development, either commercial or residential, without losing any remaining notion that the villages exist anymore. The site also borders a well used public footpath. 6) Noise - The site would undoubtedly be very noisy in what is a country village setting. This would have a negative impact on the quality of life of residents. Name: Ashar Siddiqui

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I object to Swallowfiled Gravel Pit proposal because: a) The dust partcile from the quarry will pollute the air and will definitely travel to the area where we live. Warren croft play area which is only 500-600m away from the pit. Not to mention Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away from the site. These particles can cause detrimental health effets. b) The proposal will increase traffic congestion on an anlready busy B3349 as the number of HGVs will increase. This will not only create more congestion but will also increase pollution on our country side. c) Basingstoke Rd has just been repaired because of massive pot holes on the whole section starting from Church Lane junction all the way South to Swallofield Street. I submitted a problem report to Wokingham Council # W205553 start of Jan and they have mended few parts of the Road. Now just imagine more traffic on this Road and that too mainly HGVs will cause further damage to our Roads. d) Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. We moved from Reading centre to Spencers wood five years back to avoid noise and for a peaceful village surrounding. I own my property in this area and settled. Please don't make me relocate. Thanks Name: Timothy Lancaster

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q6:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q6:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] It does not the Test of Soundness on the basis of its overall detriment to the local area and communities nearby. In particular, the infrastructure is not in place to support the proposal and the pollution resulting from the proposal would cause unjustifiable health issues for those nearby.

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] No

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] See previous comments

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection Q19:2 [An objection must relate either to the Local Plan not complying with legal requirements, or it not being sound in relation of at least one of the Test of Soundness.] Not meeting the Test of Soundness

Q20:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q20:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q20:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q20:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q21 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] See previous comments

Q22 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q38:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q38:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q38:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q38:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q39 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] See previous comments

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Debora Rochfort

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:2 Section one - Sand & Gravel Area of Search

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q6:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q6:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] No

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Emma Parsons

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The gravel pit is totally unsuitable for the proposed area. There are schools so close and the noise and air quality is a potential threat to our children. We cannot have this happen Name: Tracey Bull

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This proposal would add significantly more lorries to an already crowded and noisy Basingstoke Road, at all times of the day and night. Name: Nigel Bull

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This idea is frightening. The already congested Basingstoke road which is thunderously busy already and in poor condition, is neither wide enough nor strong enough. The impact on those living nearby is of noise pollution and also muck, dirt and particles polluting the atmosphere. In recent years with the astronomic amount of houses having been built in the vicinity, in no way should this proposal go ahead. The area is already over populated and over congested with traffic. Name: Simon Phillips

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] No

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The increase of heavy haulage traffic through Spencers Wood, would increase the dangers of using the Basingstoke Road. The previous scheme at Shinfield would be more suitable, due to the completion of the Shinfield bypass, which can handle the expected increase in trafffic. Name: peter welland

Role:

Organisation:

Responses: Name: Michael Dick

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I am writing in objection to the proposed Gravel Pit on the land west of Basingstoke Road on the following grounds: 1) Loss of local villages: The gravel pit would create an effective continuous urbanisation south of Reading. It would link through from Three Mile Cross – Spencers Wood – Swallowfield. This would destroy the individuality of the villages which is such an important feature of this part of rural Berkshire. 2) Visual Amenity: Linked to the loss of the village entity that the Pit would result in is the loss of the important visual amenity that the land provides. The area is bounded by Lambs Lane and footpaths that link Spencers Wood and Swallowfield. I use this footpath to walk to and from Swallowfield and greatly enjoy the countryside and open air. The Pit would destroy this amenity and the wellbeing benefits it creates. 3) Air Quality: within 400m of the proposed put location and believe there will be a significant deterioration in air quality as a result of the development. I understand particles created by the workings can be breathed in with detrimental health effects. 4) Traffic Increase: The B3349 is already very congested with a high volume of HGVs. The addition of the significant volume of HGVs the pit would generate will add further to the traffic volumes. In addition will be the impact of turning onto and off the B3349 to access and egress the site. There is also the safety risk from the large vehicles on the road bends by the Pit site potentially crossing the white lines. 5) Noise: The Pit will create additional noise that will have a hugely detrimental impact on our property. I understand that noise levels could be up to 70dB which is significantly above average background noise levels for UK countryside. 6) Ecology: The River Loddon on the south side of the proposed Pit is part of a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Many protected species live in the SSSI and will be severely impacted by the works. This includes otters that local anglers have seen signs of. Gravel workings would also affect the SSSI beyond the Pit area as it forms a corridor that the fauna uses. This would be interfered with by the quarrying operations. The area also supports migrating birdlife, for example redwing and fieldfare, which would be detrimentally impacted. 7) Flooding: The south edge of the site is classified as Flood Zone 2 and 3a. The quarry workings - roadways etc. – would add to the local flooding by the River Loddon as run off would be soaked up in the fields area. This is likely to have detrimental impact on local area including the footpaths. Name: June Salisbury

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I wish to object to the proposed plans for Gravel extraction in Swallowfield. . . I am extremely concerned about these plans as I fear they will have a significant detrimental effect on the noise pollution, air quality and traffic in the area. In addition, the area is already extremely prone to flooding, and the increased development and potential unknown impacts on the area's natural drainage could cause a potentially significant increase to the likelihood and severity of flooding in the area. To give a little more detail, due to the amount of traffic on the Basingstoke Road in the morning, which sees traffic jams from the M4 roundabout all the way back to the other side of Spencer's Wood. I also encounter similar issues, in which a journey into Reading train station can often take up to an hour, instead of the usual 15 minutes. There is a chronic lack of infrastructure in this area already, and additional heavy development of this sort can only make this worse. Regarding air quality and noise pollution: there are numerous schools and nurseries in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site, and I am genuinely horrified at the potentially impact suspended particles in the air caused by gravel and sand extraction could cause on young developing children, . There are numerous other areas of concern, not least the impact of heavy goods vehicles and the damage that would likely be caused to roads that are already in poor repair. Whilst I understand the need for such works, I would hope that it would be possible to find a location to use for this sort of extraction that is not in such horrifically close proximity to residential areas with a large number of young children, and would implore the planning officers to rule against this application. Many thanks, Alex. Name: JUSTIN ROBERTSON

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] within half a mile of this proposed site. They're young lungs already have to put up with the increase in traffic that Wokingham has put upon them with 7,400 new houses in recent years, the M4 being in close proximity and more recently, the 'Reading stack', where incoming Heathrow traffic queues to land. Adding further pollution to their life's - after families, like ours, moved out to the countryside to be away from the pollution of major towns and cities is criminal. The traffic in the area is beyond critical most of the time. It is so bad in fact, that the level of road rage is noticeably increasing over time. I fear it is only a matter of time before it ends in a serious injury or worse. The roads are simply not capable of carrying any more traffic. The location is completely inappropriate. It already takes many residents 40 MINUTES to get to J11 of the motorway in the morning (it is ONE MILE AWAY!!). Adding full sized aggregate lorries into the mix is completely unacceptable and asking for trouble. We are a residential village in Spencer's Wood, not an industrial center. Name: Darren Staniforth

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: sand and gravel pits increase dust and suspended particles in the atmosphere, for a wide area surrounding an extraction site. . We feel that an extraction site, close to our home would exacerbate . There are also schools, a nursery and a play area within half of a mile of the proposed site. Villages: With the extensive house building going on in the Shinfield parish, village distinction is all but gone already. We are no longer sure, where each village in our area ends and the next begins, any more. Once the extraction has taken place, we can imagine that there will be a clamour, by building companies, to use the filled land for yet more housing, which will lead to further deterioration of our village system and create the beginnings of a conurbation. How long before this is drawn into Reading, with building taking place either side of the M4 junction, from here? Flooding: The area in question, for the quarry site is already prone to flooding. The additional roads required for the quarry and any building work that is attempted on the site, once the quarry is filled in, will make the absorption of water, into local courses, even worse. Drainage ditches are already poorly maintained in this area, by Wokingham Borough Council, so run-off is already taking place on the lanes throughout our villages, causing streams to form down lanes and roads, localised flooding and cracking of the road surfaces. Traffic: quarries necessitate large vehicles, to remove the extracted materials. The roads in the proposed area for the extraction site are narrow, twisty and have narrow or no pavements. The road surfaces are already badly maintained by Berkshire County Council, to the point where I find it extremely dangerous to use my bicycle to get around, due to the huge cracks, potholes and displaced manhole covers. These extractor trucks will make the whole situation a lot worse, with their heavy loads, being taken out of the site, numerous times, per day. Even if the trucks are diverted directly on to the A33, this is already a busy road, with regular traffic jams; especially at rush hour. To add slow lumbering lorries to this will make the A33 and M4 junction 11, much worse than it already is. Noise: the quarry itself and moreover the constant heavy traffic, to and from the site, will cause noise pollution, well above the acceptable limits set in law and by WHO. The Basingstoke Road, through Spencers Wood, is already a busy thoroughfare, with constant traffic noise, throughout the day. Ecology: parts of the river Loddon, close to the proposed site are designated as SSI's. I understand that there are protected species, in this area. Our worry is that the disruption caused by noise at the quarry, run-off from the site and the constant heavy traffic will cause irreparable damage to the ecology of the area. Name: Lynda Yu

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I object to this proposal as it would increase traffic congestion on Basingstoke Road and Junction 11 of the M4. The HGVs would have to access the site via the B3349 Basingstoke Road which is a narrow road and would not accommodate a vehicle of that size without affecting on-coming traffic. I have already experienced an accident involving on-coming traffic where my wing mirror was ripped off. . An HGV is 3 or 4 times that size so you can imagine the amount of accidents that would occur. Also the road already has countless pot holes and vehicles that size and weight would cause further damage and eventually destroy the roads completely. Name: Robert Cousins

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The site is adjacent to a school. it is near to houses. the road infrastructure is unsuitable and already under stress. The site is very near the river Loddon and slopes towards the river and run-off will, surely, be unavoidable, with damage to the biodiversity of the water course. Sky larks regularly nest in this field. The area is prone to flooding (I live just downstream, of the river Loddon, from the site and we are constantly at risk of flooding even now. The works will cause unacceptable levels of noise pollution and air pollution for the surrounding houses and schools. Name: Claire Cousins

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Having lived I am very concerned of the impact of this proposal. We already suffer from flooding, which will be exacerbated. There will be additional noise pollution & increase of traffic, not to mention the air pollution, to think of. We also live by the river & worry about the impact on the wildlife. Name: Richard Nye

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air quality, traffic, proximity to schools and homes, destruction of beautiful countryside, NOT WANTED OR NEEDED IN OUR RURAL AREAS. Increase risk of flooding, noise, damage to roads and hedges. Name: Simon Veale

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I can't believe anyone would even begin to consider Swallowfield as a suitable site for a gravel extraction site. But here are just a few reasons why the whole idea should not be allowed to proceed any further. Air Quality: There used to be a small-scale slab-making operation in the village and it caused dust absolutely everywhere. I can't even begin to imagine the impact of a full-sized gravel extraction plant. Not just for the residents, but the children attending Lambs Lane Primary School, Wise Owls Nursery and Swallowfield pre-school, or using Warren’s Croft Play Area. Many of these are even closer to the "scene of the crime" than we were to the slab-making. Noise: Quarries aren't quiet operations. Apparently total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: Very topical is the subject of flooding. Swallowfield has been flooded in various places for pretty much the whole of February and now into March. It seems to get worse every year and was not the "once in every 1000 year event" that we were originally told. The proposed site is, of course, prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. This is already happening with all the other development that we're seeing in the local area. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: Kate Armitage

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: Louis Armitage

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: Andrew Armitage

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: Paul Cobbold

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: Dawn Cobbold

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: Nadene Murugen

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] My concerns are the following: Air quality, I moved out here 2 years ago to get away from the pollution in London Traffic, the roads are already congested and the quality/state of the roads will deteriorate from an already poor state, having HGV's on it constantly Flooding - anything that might cause additional flooding to what we have already experienced is not acceptable Wildlife - impact is a concern Name: Anthony Clipstone

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] THE ASSESSMENT ON THE IMPACT OF INCREASED TRAFFIC DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ADDITIVE EFFECT WHEN THE OVERALL TOTAL DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND THE ULTIMATE BOTTLENECK OF 3 MILE CROSS Name: Yan Kit Man

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Most likely to cause serious environmental damage and increase volume of traffic Name: Shuk Yan Man

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Object due to the increase noise and air pollution in the area

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: John Wilson

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The site is close to 4 schools and nurseries within 370m to 750m. Particulates from the site could cause health risks to these school and those living nearby. Noise from the site could be a problem as it is close to these schools and residential properties and industrial units. The B3349 is already a busy road and frequently potholed due to heavy lorry traffic. As the road is narrow it will be difficult for lorries to turn onto the road without crossing the centre lines. The site would further reduce the gap between separate villages of Swallowfield and Spencer’s wood. The site is on a flood zone and the natural drainage of open land could be reduced if roads and buildings are erected on this site. Runoff water from surrounding villages is already a significant problem for Swallowfield nearby at a lower level. The site adjoins an area of special scientific interest which is sensitive to chemical pollutants. Name: Louisa Whitehurst

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] My Objection is for the following; - The impact of the recent storms has made the risks around development on floodplains a very pertinent subject. If this quarry is allowed to go ahead, the housing in the area will be at increased risk of flooding, especially as this will be in addition to any existing agreed housing developments. - The area itself is admired for its proximity to reading but also rural feel; this is under threat if a quarry is to be established. - I live 3.5 miles from my work across the M4 and already at times it can take me close to an hour to cover this distance. This industry will no doubt increase traffic on the road inclusive of HGVs which will further clog the already over stretched roads into Reading of a morning. - Impact to the environment would be irreversible, wildlife and plantlife will be destroyed. Name: Elaine Jones

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I object for the following reasons: Climate Emergency: This proposol promotes carbon dioxide production. It does not give due consideration to the UK’s commitments to reduce carbon emissions under the Paris Agreement. Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. This would contribute to air quality pollution and noise pollution. It Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Habitat Loss: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: Maureen Jones

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I object for the following reasons: Climate Emergency: Wokingham Borough Council have formally declared a Climiate Emergency. This proposol promotes carbon dioxide production. It does not give due consideration to the UK’s commitments to reduce carbon emissions under the Paris Agreement. Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. This would contribute to air quality pollution and noise pollution. It Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Habitat Loss: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: Daniel Allen

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I object for the following reasons: Climate Emergency: This proposol promotes carbon dioxide production. It does not give due consideration to the UK’s commitments to reduce carbon emissions under the Paris Agreement. Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. This would contribute to air quality pollution and noise pollution. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Habitat Loss: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: Rory Waterer

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposed site will adversely affect Air Quality and will be especially bad for the children at Lambs Lane Primary School which borders the site Name: Mark Solomon

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Noise pollution, air pollution from excavation of site. HGV's unsuitable for Basingstoke road, road is too thin and will increase risks of accident. Increased degradation of road from HGV's. Increased traffic Increased risk of flooding Negative impact to ecosystem of River Loddon Name: Emilia Ciarleglio

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] " Sheepbridge Court, which is adjacent to the proposed site. Sheepbridge Court contains a Scheduled Ancient Monument (“SAM”) https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1013336. The SAM is a circular moated site and associated earthworks which is seasonally filled with water from the River Lodden which forms the eastern portion of the moat. The moat was constructed between 1250 and 1350 and has silted up over the centuries so that only the eastern portion of the moat is now continuously flowing with water. Outside the moat, on a separate island to the east, are what are considered to be two silted up stew ponds or the remains of a fishpond. These fishponds are completely under water a few times a year during heavy rains when the River Lodden rises and completely covers the fishponds. During heavy rains, rain water from the proposed site flows into the river Lodden carrying soil. In the event of a gravel quarry, the disturbance of the earth by the extraction activity will increase the amount of material carried into the Lodden and carried downstream to the SAM which will accelerate the silting of the remaining portion of the moat, and will accelerate the disappearance of the fishponds as they fill with increased sediments. Clause 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Feb 2019), states that “any harm to or loss of… a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction…) should require a clear and convincing justification.” If this proposal is to proceed, it will directly lead to the damage and alteration of the moat and fishponds by accelerating their silting and eventual disappearance by them filling with increased soil runoff from the quarry. As the proposal is contrary to national policy, it fails the Test of Soundness and therefore should be rejected." Name: William Dowling

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Risk of flooding, ecological and environmental damage and harm. Air and noise pollution. Increased traffic of large lorries Name: Sharon Oakes

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I strongly object to the proposed gravel pit in Swallowfield/ Spencers Wood for the following reasons. To start with I feel the air quality will be compromised and this site is very close to a school and pre school establishments. The health of people, young and old with respiratory disease particularly will be compromised. The Gp services are already at full stretch. This area is already overloaded with traffic and the roads are in a shocking state and some, where the amount of potholes are positively dangerous.Exactly what will more excessive HGV traffic do to them? It certainly won’t have a positive effect! There is also the question of flooding. This area is prone to flooding. We have seen in recent weeks the effect it has when flood plains are concreted over. I feel strongly that the ecology and archaeology of the proposed site have not been considered seriously enough. Once areas like this are decimated, wild life doesn’t return and if archaeology architecture is destroyed that is unthinkable. I do feel WBC has a duty of care to the people who live in the area and these types of proposals do not support this.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] I feel there surely are more suitable sites for the gravel pit to be developed. Name: Deborah Dowling

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The traffic to and from the site will be a danger to pedestrians, cause congestion and an increase in vehicle pollution. There will be issues regarding wildlife and flooding. There will be air pollution causing health problems. Name: Alan Harlow

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I do not feel that the soundness tests have been accurately and consistently done Name: Mel Kimber

Role: Supervisor

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Gravel extraction will seriously harm the kingfisher population on the River Loddon SSSI Name: Jane Revell

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Serious disruption to the groundwater on the site will have a bad effect on the River Loddon SSSI Name: Denise Jenkins

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposal will generate a huge amount of dust and noise which will be very disruptive to a lot of local residents that live near the site Name: Colin Saunders

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The B3349 is a very substandard road which is not suitable for the large number of HGV movements on and off the site. It is likely that large lorries will have to swing across the oncoming traffic to join the B3349 Name: Matt Williamson

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This is a totally inappropriate location for gravel extraction due to the very poor highways infrastructure that connects the site to the local road network Name: Denise Bailey

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This will impact on the air quality, increase in road traffic and noise, also an increase of risk of flooding to the area. Also will impact badly on local wild life including protected species and also significant sites of archaeological importance. Name: Roy Cowley

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The prosed site is prone to flooding with the southern part of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. The severe interference with groundwater levels from gravel extraction will make this worse as well as spoiling an important wildlife corridor for important species. Name: Eloise Littlejohn

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposed site is far to close to the River Loddon SSSI and its rare Loddon Pondweed. Any threat to this important ecological site should not be allowed. Name: Tina Mault

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposed site will adversely affect Air Quality and will be especially bad for the children at Lambs Lane primary school which borders the site Name: Katie Markram

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The site is close to several areas of high Archaeological importance – Beaumy’s Castle and Sheepbridge Court and a WW2 pillbox – gravel must not be extracted from here Name: Nick Burgess

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Sheepbridge Court is one of only a few moated sites in Berkshire – it must not be compromised by this proposal Name: Jake Spain

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The fields and meadows along the River Loddon are important hunting grounds for Barn Owls, so this proposal must not be allowed Name: Paul Whitlam

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] A strong local population of Buzzards use the River Loddon catchment area for their hunting grounds, so a gravel extraction proposal on this site would seriously compromise that Name: Christine McTaggart

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Pippistrelle bats use the proposed site for hunting their food and this important habitat would be lost if gravel is extracted here Name: Dan O'Leary

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Stone Curlews have nested on the site in the past, so an important breeding ground for them could be lost if gravel is taken from the site. The Curlew cannot tolerate any disruption on this scale Name: Nick Ulyatt

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This proposal is complete madness and is a totally inappropriate location for minerals extraction Name: Kerry Woolford

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] These fields are an important green gap between settlements and should not be developed in this way Name: Sam Sutherland

Role:

Organisation: Urban Planters

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] At the moment these fields help to keep the villages of Swallowfield and Spencers Wood separated which is important for their identity Name: Cathy Laws

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] It's just 230m at its closest point upwind from Shinfield St Mary's CE Junior school which means for much of the year it will be blowing dust directly towards the school and into our children's lungs. Shinfield Infant and Nursery School isn't much further beyond CEMEX haven't mentioned dust pollution in their air quality reports. They haven't measured traffic pollution particles of PM10 and PM2.5 - these two are the ones small enough to get deep into your lungs and trigger or worsen respiratory diseases. There's also new scientific data which says it is also cancer-causing. The traffic pollution dispersion reports (that's how the pollution spreads in the air) submitted by CEMEX were taken on the two days where the wind was coming from a northerly direction. Around here, that accounts for less than 3% of the time so totally unrepresentative of what's normal.They plan to work between 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday; and 7am till 1 on a Saturday with a caveat that they may work longer due to operational reasons - it will be noisy and dirty They approximate (because very little of their evidence submitted is factual, in many cases it's "we believe", "we estimate" etc) that there will be, on average, 250 lorry movements a day. That's ONE LORRY GOING IN OR OUT OF THE SITE EVERY 2.5 MINUTES. The reality is that this is an average: they will be slower or inactive in the worst weather so will work longer and harder on other days to catch up. The amount of traffic on Hyde End Road is already a concern. They estimate that their activities will last for at least 7 years. By the calculations of what fits in a lorry, they will not have finished in 7 years and CEMEX have form in applying for an extension During the initial site set up, lorries will be using the lane entrance to Burley Lodge (the single track lane almost opposite Croft Gardens on Hyde End Road. These lorries expect to swing across both lanes if turning left out of the site towards Spencers Wood - slow moving lorry, pulling out onto 40mph road. Further habitat destruction and reduction of beautiful green spaces round Shinfield, and impact of pollution on the local SANG which is used by our children for walks. Name: Mrs Diane Garland

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] My concern is that the air quality will be compromised. Dust and particles up to 10 micro/metres are fine enough to breath in and cause health problems. Particles larger than 10 micro/metres can soil properties and trees. Lambs Lane School is very close to the proposed Quarry, and there are several Pre-School and Nuseries all within a short distance. Noise would be a problem and this is a quiet country area which would change. Traffic would increase with HGV's on the Basingstoke Road and would cause congestion and danger to all road users as the road has double white lines. Further urbanization will destroy the unique characters of each village spoiling the green space which give the villages their pleasant boundaries, and semi-rural status. Name: Richard Alan Crowe

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I have lived and have seen a steady erosion of the countryside in the area over the years. I wish to object to the proposal on the following grounds. The order of my objections should not be seen as a priority as all are equally important. 1. Ecology - The River Lodden Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. This is a very sensitive eco system which acts as a corridor for wildlife including Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts which are Protected Species. The River is also home to Loddon Pondweed which is sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. It is known that badgers, deer, monkjack and water voles live in the area and recent records have identified sea trout in the river. 2.Air Quality - Near sand and gravel extraction sites there is a known increase in suspended particulate matter and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling.Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be inhaled and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when deposited onto property and trees - for an example see the A327 at Eversley! Intermediate particles can travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary School is situated only 370 meters away from the proposed site with Wise Owl Nursery 550m, Warren's Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. This is totally unacceptable. 3. Noise - Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. The WHO defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. 4. Traffic - congestion in the area is already at unacceptable levels with the current road system unchanged since prior to the construction of some 1,200+ homes in local Shinfield area. This proposal will increase traffic congestion from HGV's along the Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4 where current traffic levels already exceed the original design specification. Site access is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road which is a narrow twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It will be almost impossible for an HGV to join the B3349 towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into busy on coming traffic. 5. Villages - This belt of green farmland provides a distinctive break between the settlements. Currently it also provides a visual amenity which would be lost if the quarry is developed. Further urbanisation and development would lead to the creation of a singe conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided and the individual character of each village retained. Additionally there is a well used public footpath bordering the site which must be retained as an amenity for recreation for the local inhabitants. 6. Local Archaeology - The site is an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site. This is part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. There are three listed buildings near the site as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. 7. Flooding - The proposed site is, like many other areas along the River Lodden in Shinfield Parish, prone to flooding. The southern edge of the site is classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. The addition of the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will be required to service the quarry will reduce the capacity of the area to absorb the additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Lodden. This will include many of the existing and recently developed areas along with the associated SANGs. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage systems. In summary I believe for the reasons outlined above that this proposal should be rejected as its development would damage the local environment, which is already under pressure, pollute the quality of the air in the area and the waters of the River Lodden and put more traffic onto the Basingstoke Road. Name: Olivia Gellatly

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposal would increase HGV traffic along the Basingstoke Road. Proposed access to the site is very narrow and twisting country road which isn't able to cope with this type of vehicle at volume. I can't see how it would be impossible for such a vehicle not to breach the double white lines on the road when joining the B3340 towards the M4. The Air Quality also greatly worries me as I believe are within 400M travelling distance of intermediate sized particles, how can it be acceptable to expose children to air pollution on this scale. Name: Tom Davies

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I wish to object due to the increased traffic and noise, reduction of air quality and erosion of our village identities. Traffic - dense building in the villages of Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood and Shinfield has placed the local road network, A33, and M4 Jct 11 under extreme pressure. This proposal would increase traffic using the B3349 Basingtoke Road which is already extremely congested, and runs through the heart of our village and therefore unsuitable for regular HGV traffic. Noise - Quarries generate significant noise levels during operation which is not consistent with village life Air quality - the proposed site is in proximity to a local primary school and residential area. Suspended particulate matter and dust creates a risk to the health of residents and our children. Village life - this is green belt farmland and separates the settlements of Spencers Wood from Swallowfield and Riseley. We have already suffered erosion of the distinction between our communities due to over development of housing in the area. Enough is enough. Name: Ian Finlayson

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The river Loddon is an SSSI and runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem and includes protected species such as barn owls, red kites, and great crested newts. There are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water, along with water voles. This is a belt of green farmland which provides distinction between settlements of Spencers Wood and Swallowfield. Otherwise there would be a large conurbation with no individual character to the villages. Lambs Lane school is only 370m from the site, and risk from dust and particulates from the site must be avoided. Name: David Bellerby

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposed gravel extraction site is next to a busy, built-up area; this is a ludicrous proposal. The impact on the surrounding area will be severe; gravel extraction is inherently dusty with potentially harmful effects on air quality, particularly in an area close to a number of schools (e.g. Lambs Lane Primary), nursery and pre-school facilities. The B3349 Basingstoke Road is already heavily used (and with some difficulties by existing HGV’s) and the unavoidable increase in lorry movements will make the noise and traffic volume unbearable, particularly for homes along the B3349, as is the case with . Why is the sight of open, undeveloped areas so repugnant to certain factions that they find it necessary to develop or scavenge whatever they can from these green areas? They should be protected and left alone, particularly in an area as developed as the Thames Valley. Surprisingly, I (and I am sure many others living here) enjoy the sight of Red Kites, Barn Owls and species of deer. The River Loddon SSSI is immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed site; the impact on the existing wildlife will undoubtedly be catastrophic. The proposed gravel extraction facility should be rejected.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Mr R C Austin

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Traffic - this proposal would increase the number of HGVs on the B3349 and at Junction 11 of the M4 Safety – the B3349 is a narrow country road with many blind bends on the hill adjacent to the proposed access to the site. It would be difficult for large vehicles to avoid crossing the double white lines on this road as they exit the site. Air Quality – dust from the site would be detrimental to the health of local residents and pupils of Lambs Lane Primary School, Wise Owls Nursery, Warren’s Croft Play Area and Swallowfield pre-school, which are all close by. Noise – there would be an increase in noise pollution, which can cause health issues if it exceeds 55dB. Flooding – the River Loddon is prone to flooding in the area of the proposed site. Addition of roadways within the site would reduce the natural drainage and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the river, which could be in built up areas. Name: Mrs S. Austin

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality – this proposed site is too close to local schools and nurseries and the dust would be detrimental to the children. Traffic – the B3349 Basingstoke Road is too narrow to take a lot of large vehicles which would have to cross the white lines. Flooding – the proposed site is prone to flooding with the river Loddon nearby. Noise – the noise levels would increase causing distraction to the children in nearby schools. Safety – the extra traffic coming through the village to the M4 would be a danger to the school children walking to Lambs Lane School. Name: Edward Porter

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Name: Helen McLoughlin

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Name: Paul Atkins

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I would like to register my objections to the proposed Quarry development on the land west of Basingstoke Road. It would be catastophic for the area due to: - the health risks due to the particulate pollution from the quarry - the further overcrowding of the already congested roads - the noise pollution from the quarry - the further loss of green space in an area where we have already lost too much due to excessive housing development. Name: Vanessa Ward

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] My main concerns are as follows : Air Quality in the area will be impacted as quarry dust generated will travel and can be breathed in. As well as nearby housing being impacted there is a primary school comfortably within the radius that dust particles can travel as well as 2 further nurseries and a play area nearby. How can this be acceptable to impact children’s health? As well as increased traffic congestion from HGVs on the Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4, proposed access to the site via the B3349 Basingstoke Road is simply dangerous. This is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. I cannot see how it would be possible for a large vehicle to easily join the B3349 heading westbound without crossing these white lines. , I’ve also seen first-hand, when Meakins was trading on Lambs Lane, the dis-regard for community and danger created for young children caused by lorry drivers focused on their next delivery rather than their surroundings. Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. One of the reasons I have chosen to live in this area is that it is semi-rural and quieter than living in an urban area. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. It cannot be acceptable for our local councils, who must consider the health and concerns of their residents, to expose this community to sound levels that the World Health Organisation say would cause health issues. As a resident I have seen increased flooding in the area over the last few years, yet building continues with what seems ineffective drainage provision, The proposed site is also prone to flooding; by adding the hardscaping and roadways to create the quarry, this would reduce the area able to absorb additional water which has to go somewhere which will increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon including residents’ home and local businesses. I hope my concerns are taken seriously. Name: Mark Ward

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I object to this because of the increased noise, heavy traffic in this area, also the quality of the air will be detrimental . There is a Primary school, nursery and playschool in this area. There is also a nearby river with wildlife in this area, such as badgers, also protected species . There is also a risk to future flooding in the area if this goes ahead. Flooding has already affected nearby areas. We have already lost too many green fields in this area, and there are listed buildings in this area. Name: Alex Ward

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] My main concerns are as follows : Air Quality in the area will be impacted as quarry dust generated will travel and can be breathed in. As well as nearby housing being impacted there is a primary school comfortably within the radius that dust particles can travel as well as 2 further nurseries and a play area nearby. I attended this primary school for 7 years and don't think it is acceptable to put children’s health at risk for profit. As well as increased traffic congestion from HGVs on the Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4, proposed access to the site via the B3349 Basingstoke Road is simply dangerous. This is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. I cannot see how it would be possible for a large vehicle to easily join the B3349 heading westbound without crossing these white lines. I’ve also seen lorries mount the pavement when Meakins was on Lambs Lane. There is a dis-regard for community and danger created for young children caused by lorry drivers focused on their next delivery rather than their surroundings. Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. It cannot be acceptable for our local councils, who must consider the health and concerns of their residents, to expose this community to sound levels that the World Health Organisation say would cause health issues. As a resident I have seen increased flooding in the area over the last few years, yet building continues with what seems ineffective drainage provision, The proposed site is also prone to flooding; by adding the hardscaping and roadways to create the quarry, this would reduce the area able to absorb additional water which has to go somewhere which will increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon including residents’ home and local businesses. I hope my concerns are taken seriously. Name: Tim Allen

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality. an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, an dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling.Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Intermediate sixed particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, and Wise Owls Nursery 550m. Noise. Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Total noise polution from operations should not exceed 55dB occasional temporary 70dB. Traffic. Increased HGV traffic will enter from the site on the B3349 , they will have to cross the white centre lines to turn towards Reading. This will be dangerous to oncoming traffic. HGV traffic increases danger to Lambs lane school. Flooding The preposed site is prone to flooding, classified as Flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the river Loddon. Ecology. The river Loddon is a site of special interest, which runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for wildlife. These include protected species, Barn Owl, Red Kite and Greater Crested Newt. The river also has Loddon Pondweed, which is sensitive to pullutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area as will as Otter spraint being recorded in the area. There are many sites already in existence that while are not in the near distance offer the sand material needed for local house building. I object strongly to this site as by turning this green belt which forms a space between villages into a gravel pit it would then be turned into a housing estate loosing the greenbelt forever. This I am sure is not lost on the present land owners, who are I am sure looking to profit from the destruction of our lust green land that makes this country so beautiful and we should protect it vigorously. Name: Penny Allen

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] There are a number of reasons for my objection: 1) Traffic - This proposal would increase traffic from HGV's on an already congested Basingstoke Road and M4 junction. The proposed location on Basingstoke road is on a narrow part of the road, with a number of bends and double white lines. It would be almost impossible for HGV's to access the site without crossing onto the incorrect side of the road. There is also a single narrow footpath and risk to pedestrians would be increased. 2) Air Quality - There is an increase in particulate matter near extraction sites, these particles can cause health issues. There is a primary school within close proximity to the proposed site which would put lots of children at risk. 3) Noise - This will cause an increase in noise pollution and at a level which may be detrimental to health given the proximity to schools and housing (levels of 55dB is a level which The World Health organisation identifies as a level which can cause health issues for a community. 4) Flooding - The proposed site is prone to flooding. By adding hardscaping and roadways this would reduce the area available to absorb water and risk additional flooding within the local community which is a risk to Swallowfield which regularly suffers from flooding issues. 5) Archaeology - The site is an area of high archaeological potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti- tank ditch within the site, There are 3 listed buildings near the site as well as Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire Name: James Doyle

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] My objection is based on the following grounds: - This area is liable to flooding. The proposal would result in hardscaping which will inevitably result in water going elsewhere and having a knock on impact to the surrounding communities. Swallowfield is known to have regular flooding issues already, this will only compound the problem. - The proposal will increase traffic to the already congested local villages. The Basingstoke Road at the proposed location is very narrow and HGV's on this road will be a big risk to pedestrians and other road users. It will be almost impossible for HGV's to use this road without crossing the double white lines and onto oncoming traffic. - The proposal will create a risk to the local community in particular children at Lambs Lane Primary School. The proposal will result in noise levels above 55dB which Public Health Englad define as a health risk. Dusty air will also be generated which which can have detrimental health effects. The proximity of the site to Lambs Lane Primary school should be a key consideration. - The site also contains a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch which are of archaeological interest. There are three listed buildings near the site along with Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire Name: Natasha Andishi

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:2 Section one - Sand & Gravel Area of Search

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I moved , because of the construction in preparation for the 2022 FIFA world cup. The health concerns we had for could not be ignored any longer. I left , to come here so could get a better, healthier future, only for a sand and gravel area to move close to our home and . This is NOT acceptable. The fineness of this type of sand has caused 1000's of respiratory illnesses in adults and kids in Qatar for years. With Acute respiratory infections being number 4 on the 2003 report for Top 10 causes of Mortality/Morbidity. The sand becomes so fine that the nasal passage is unable to prevent these from entering into the lungs. 2 out of 3 woman give birth to children that either suffer from Eczema or Asthma. In 2017, Sidra Medical Center for Children in Qatar, published a report regarding health issues created in children related to this type of sand. I didn't make such a big sacrifice to bring . This is not fair.

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] They place this area anywhere far away from homes and schools for a miles. A week ago we had several windy days, even one day would be enough for the sand from this pit to be circulated through our area and have all our kids sick for the coming weeks, if not years.

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I object to this plan because of its impact on air quality. An increase in suspended particulate matter is caused from extraction sites, while dust from a quarry cause particles up to 10 micrometers in diameter to be fine enough to be breathed in and cause detrimental health issues. Intermediate sized particles travel up to 400m, entering homes through doors and windows. We have 4 schools in the direct vicinity, in danger of polluting our childrens air. Name: Dawn Wren

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] the proposal will increase traffic on the Basingstoke road and the surrounding roads. The roads are barely coping with the already increased traffic onto a road that was never meant to be a main road. It is a twisty county road that has vehicles parked on it, a hill and narrow pavements which is not suitable for HGV use as it would be nearly impossible for them to stay on the correct side of the road. Name: Stephanie Jones

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposed gravel & sand extraction on the area west of Basingstoke road in Spencers Wood will increase the traffic flow on Basingstoke road & at junction 11 of the M4. The pavement is very narrow along the stretch of Basingstoke road near the proposed site which is already dangerous for pedestrians and will be worse with HGVs. The road is narrow and buses currently cross the central white line into oncoming traffic. HGVs will be worse. The proposed site is also situated on the flood plain of the river Loddon. As I write the area proposed is flooded. The gravel extraction site will exacerbate the flooding that currently occurs & is likely to make flooding worse elsewhere in the area & that directly affects my house which is on the flood plain. The river Loddon runs alongside the proposed site and there is a high likelihood that the Loddon will be affected by pollution. This will have a direct impact on the ecology of the Loddon and surrounding area. There are great crested newts, barn owls, water voles, trout etc. in the Loddon area. Name: Brian Powles

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This proposal will increase the traffic congestion on the Basingstoke Road and Junction 11 of the M4. The proposal for site access has been indicated on the Basingstoke Road. This is a narrow road which has narrow paths, parked cars, hills and bends. It will be almost impossible for a HGV to stay on the correct side of the road. This being the case it will cause more issues on an already busy road that is struggling to cope with the extra cars from recent housing developments. Name: Simon Prince

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Area of natural beauty with a huge variety of wildlife including close proximity to the River Loddon which is home to Loddon Pondweed and sensitive to inputs of chemicals aswell as the damage to the river inhabitants. Severe increase of traffic congestion and associated air pollution from HGVs. Noise and air pollution from the quarry. Name: JULIE PRINCE

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] air quality, noise, traffic, villages, ecology, Name: Christine Porter

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality will be compromised with properties, schools and play area within 370 metres of the site. Noise pollution and obviously increased traffic with large vehicles exiting the site onto a winding B road. Green belt land which distinguishes Spencers Wood from Swallowfield should be maintained. Name: Lawrence Sanchez

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air quality especially as there is a nursey, pre school and primary within 600m of this site. Traffic as the BB3949 is a narrow twisting country road The site provides a seperation between the villages of Swallowfield and Spencers Wood Noise Flooding , especially given the recent floods that the River Blackwater has produced. The development would lead to unknown changes to the natural drainage system Name: Malcolm Herbert Porter

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Noise pollution and increased traffic. HGVs coming out of the site onto the B3349 is dangerous and this site should be protected as a strip of green belt between two villages. Also, air quality will impact the school and play area very close to proposed site. Name: Claire Weir

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The individual character of the villages must be retained. This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross Spencer’s Wood Shinfield Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided and the individual character of the villages must be retained. Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says the total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The WHO defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: Jonathon Gray

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposed gravel extraction site would lead to a significant increase in local traffic, notably form heavy goods vehicles with an increase in air and noise pollution on an already busy road (Basingstoke Road) where the council should be enacting plans that reduce air and noise pollution, not permitting an increase in them. Additionally, air quality would be adversely affected in the local area from the gravel extraction, that would impact on a children's nursery (Wise Owls) ; I have concerns about the impacts on air quality and noise. Name: Rachel Gray

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposed gravel extraction site would lead to a reduction in air quality in the local area from the gravel extraction, that would impact on a children's nursery (Wise Owls) ; I have concerns about the impacts on air quality and noise. Additionally, a large area of farmland/grassland would be removed in an area where new build housing has reduced the number of wildlife habitats significantly; there is now little distinction between areas of Spencers Wood and Swallowfield. Name: Suzanne Madigan

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I object to this site for 3 main reasons: 1) access and traffic to/from the site-the B3349 is a small country road and is already heavily congested with development in the area, at peak times delays of 45 minutes are not unusual, the road does not have the capacity for lorries to/from the quarry. As someone who regularly walks along the road, I would have safety concerns with so many lorries using the road. 2) Flooding, the River Loddon regularly floods in this area, which is getting worse with the development within its flood plain, the quarry will add to the problem and endanger local homes and potentially lives. 3) Ecology- we should not be further damaging the wildlife in and around the Loddon. Name: Graham Prior

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air pollution effecting at least 4 schools in the nearby area, which will undoubtedly cause detrimental health problems. The increase of HGV's on the B3349 would break up an already poorly surface road and the narrowness of the road and pavement is likely to cause a danger to pedestrians. Who would be accountable in a court of law should the plan proceed and people suffer as a result of ignoring these objections ? Name: Susan Porter

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The traffic in the area is already a massive issue which would only worsen with this here. It is also outrageous that people, such as myself, have been lured into buying a new build designed for a family and young children with the possibility of this which would affect the air quality and potentially cause health issues. Flooding is another problematic area here and this would only worsen it. Name: Jane Barnes

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes Name: Kevin Morrison

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Unsuitable due the location within a green belt area of the village. As the proposed site is close to housing there will be an impact on noise and traffic on already busy roads. In addition the effect on air quality has already been proven to make this site unsuitable. Name: Nicola Wells

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Traffic : huge increase in traffic congestion. The road is already unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists, the cars are held up in traffic jams most mornings already. Noise: The quarry would increase the level of noise pollution. It is unsafe for the school next door. Air Quality: The increase in debris and particles in the air would be detrimental to the health of all those who live near to the site. Again the school and the children would be effected and increase levels of asthma and respiratory diseases in the local community. Flooding: This area already floods regularly. There would be an increase in flooding with mud and debris causing additional blockages in the natural water level. Not to mention increased dirt on the roads. Ecology: the local area is already affected by increased house building - the local wildlife would be destroyed with chemicals, diggers and further urbanisation. This means protected species habitats being destroyed for future generations. The area and it's natural flora and fauna will never recover. Name: Steve Killoran

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] There is already considerable over development in this area which has led to significant congestion and now poorly maintained roads. This plan would greatly increase noise, pollution, traffic and the further increased risk of flooding in the surrounding areas. It cannot be in the interests of the local area as it puts the local ecology at significant risk. This plan must be stopped!

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] To cease the desire to cover our land with further buildings and extract vital minerals from the land Name: steve mills

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] concerns over viability of site, concerns over air quality issues resulting and the impact on health to the local community and damaging wildlife and property, the increase in traffic volume in an area which is already struggling with traffic volume as a result of previous developments without sufficient consideration given to infrastructure, the negative impact on the individual characterisation of the local historic village communities and in general the noise pollution and the negative impact on the rural community. Finally this is an area already struggling with flooding issues which this will not help. Name: Anna Piper Nye

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposal is not compatible with National Policy for the following reasons: 1. AIR QUALITY Quarrying for sand and gravel will inevitably increase levels of particulates in the air - not only from the quarrying operation itself but also from exhaust fumes and dust from brakes of the large number of vehicles that would need to access the site. This is a special concern in relation to Lambs Lane Primary School – the school playing field is just over 300 metres from the Northern boundary of the site – but the site is also close to the Wise Owls Nursery. More generally increased traffic would impact on the air quality along the B3349 especially affecting pedestrians and users of public transport as well as discouraging people from walking and other healthy exercise. 2. HIGHWAYS Although it is impossible to predict the number of HGVs that would be accessing the site until the size of any deposits are established, if the site were viable it would be likely to result in several hundred additional journeys per day by HGVs along the B3349. In addition to the impact on air quality referred to above this would significantly increase congestion on already-congested roads, especially during the morning and evening commuting periods, causing additional danger to other road-users, especially children and other pedestrians and cyclists. Local roads are already subject to increased traffic due to the new houses being constructed and this will increase further as more houses are completed – especially if the proposed Grazeley Garden Town goes ahead. To further increase this demand would be reckless and unnecessary. Access to the site itself is constricted and the location of bus stops on either side of the road. Any HGV entering from the South would have to swing out into the path of on-coming traffic increasing the risk of accidents to cars and bus-users and adding to delay and congestion. The proposed access to the site is also shared by Footpath 19 and this would present a particular risk to users of the footpath. 3. FLOODING The southern edge of the site adjoins the River Loddon and is categorised as Flood Zone 2 and 3a and, as the recent weather has demonstrated, is subject to flooding. The site is therefore unsuitable for quarrying. 4. ENVIRONMENT The land is currently farmland adjacent to the River Loddon and forms part of the “Green Gap” between Spencers Wood and Swallowfield. At this point the River forms part of the Stanford End Mill and River Loddon SSSI and is notable for Loddon Pondweed, a rare species which is highly sensitive to changes in water quality and is recognised as a BAP Priority Species in the Biodiversity Strategy for the Loddon Valley. As noted above the site is prone to flooding and any leaching of minerals would represent a risk to water quality from run off. As also noted above the site is crossed by Footpath 19, part of a network of footpaths on either side of the A33 which are subject to increasing use, by dog walkers and others, as the villages of Spencers Wood and Three Mile Cross expand and which will come under even greater pressure if the new Grazeley Garden Town is given the go ahead. If the development were to proceed the reduced amenity value would have a direct impact on the development of more healthy lifestyles promoted by Government. It is also likely to negate benefits of establishing SANGs as part of the South of the M4 development, encouraging people to travel, by car, for recreational purposes to other sensitive environments which the SANGs are intended to protect. 5. ECOLOGY In addition to Loddon Pondweed, the River is home to other protected species, including otter, water vole and great crested newt and forms an important wildlife corridor linking the area to the Lodge Wood and Sandford Mill SSSI. As set out in the Biodiversity Strategy, this is an important contribution to preventing habitat fragmentation arising from the expansion of the communities of Spencers Wood, Shinfield and Arborfield and the more developed areas of Lower Earley, Winnersh and Woodley. Name: Jean Wright

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Concerned with effect on air quality, noise, traffic and flooding. To keep the individual character of the villages and access to the public footpath on the border of the proposed site. Also the ecological threat to wildlife. Name: Mrs Sarah Scotchmer

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The addition of many new houses to Spencers Wood and Shinfield has led to a massive increase in traffic, of which a considerable amount consists of lorries. There are shops and residential properties along the side of the Basingstoke Road in one direction which already create on- road parking issues, and in the other direction, the road twists and winds and is not suitable for lorries. Furthermore, a large number of wildlife habitats have been destroyed by the house building. This proposal will cause further damage. Then there is the issue of flooding in the area. At present, it is able to absorb some of the flood water but an increase in roads etc will make this less possible. Finally, we have been promised that the individuality of the villages will be maintained. A gravel pit between Spencers Wood and Swallowfield will impact on the distinction between the two villages.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes

Q16 [What change are you seeking?] Investigate the possibility of locating the gravel pit nearer to Basingstoke where it could be in an area where it will not disturb existing villages, and lorries could use the A33 bypass to transport the gravel. Name: Kate Mitchell

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] 1. Traffic congestion. Access to the site is very limited with narrow, busy roads (B3349), not suitable for large numbers of HGV vehicles. At present the bus has difficulty passing lorries on the twisting 2 miles of road either side of the site. Access to the site would be very difficult as the road is narrow and visibility poor with bends on the road. 2. Flooding. This area regularly suffers from flooding, and good drainage into the River Loddon is vital to prevent local properties flooding. In 2020 there have been 2 flood warnings in this area and any disturbance of the land through gravel extraction and quarrying will cause the flood risk to increase in adjacent areas along the river. 3. Air quality. Quarries cause air pollution and dust to spread out over the local area, effecting Lambs Lane school, the nursery, houses and local businesses.This will adversely effect the health of local people living, working or studying in the local area. 4. The proposed quarry would damage the existing agricultural area between the villages of Spencers Wood and Swallowfield. These are villages with unique identities. 5. Public footpath. I regularly use the public footpath from Basingstoke Road alongside the Mill House to Kings bridge. This area along the River Loddon is unspoilt countryside with a variety of wildlife, including the Loddon Lily and other protected species.This would be lost if the quarry is sited her. 6. The River Loddon is a beautiful and unpolluted river, full of wildlife and this would be damaged by quarrying on its banks.as it leads directly into the Thames, the threat of a pollution incident would have widespread consequences. Name: Thomas Gellatly

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The extra traffic caused by large HGVs would increase congestion and potential danger to me and in an already busy narrow road system through spencers wood. is adjacent to the road many of these HGVs would drive pass and believe the added congestion will cause excessive extra noise disruption and extra pollution. I am concerned that the reduction in potential flood plain would increase the risk of flooding in the Spencers wood area, and specifically my house and garden. I have a and I fear that the increase in fine articulate matter could potentially cause health issues when playing outside. The potential disruption of the ecosystem and loss of species would be devastating to me and as we love to walk in these areas and feel it is crucial to maintain these areas and to support positive effects on these ecosystems wherever possible. Name: Mrs B J Carpenter

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:2 Section one - Sand & Gravel Area of Search

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Q2:6 Section four: Further comments

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q7 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] With a primary school, nursery school play area and pre-school in the immediate vicinity I believe that there will be a detrimental impacet on local air quality from both the extraction operation and the increased traffic in the area. As a local resident living in a village I believe that the area will change from rural to industrial and that there will be a detrimental effect on all residents and the local schools due incread traffic resulting in significant noise and congested roads. The local area has already seen the construction of thousands of new houses. This has been a major disturbance due to degradation in air quality, noise pollution and increased traffic. The area cannot take any more. The site in question is already prone to flooding. excessive local building has already affected the local water table. Extraction in the area will affect local houses and the school.

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] Do not allow extraction to take place on the land west of the Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air pollution Noise pollution More traffic Greater risk of flooding Change from a village to an industrial area We already have thousands of new houses and have lived in a building site for several years. The water table is affected. People have already started to move away - destruction of rural communities Affect on local wildlife Proximity to Loddon Primary school and other pre-schools and play areas

Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] Do not extract on the land west of the Basingstoke Road Name: Mike Balbini

Role:

Organisation: Shinfield Parish Council

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] Sand and gravel extraction point should be situated near rail heads so as to remove the product efficiently and with minimal disruption to the locality with regard to traffic.

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposal does not meet the criteria for positively prepared as it does not have sufficient infrastructure surrounding the area resulting in an unjustifiable level of HGV traffic in and out of the site on minor roads. The proposal does not meet the criteria for effectiveness as it cannot be delivered as planned without major disruption to the locality. The access/exit point should be onto the A33 and not minor village road.

Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] No view either way

Section three: Proposed Policy DM15: Past Operator Performance Q35 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] No view either way

Q40 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No

Q42 [Do you have any further comments?] Sand and gravel extraction was proposed last year in the parish on a neighbouring field and was rejected. I hope the same will apply here. We need sand and gravel but that must be available elsewhere and railed in. Name: Warna Masakorala

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This is a small village and cannot take any more development & air pollution with loads more heavy vehicle traffic on small roads. Name: Malika Don

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] These are small villages and cannot take any more development & air pollution with loads more heavy vehicle traffic on small roads. Name: Charles Carwana

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This area has already been turned up and roads broken up over the past years with all the building works that we have had to contend with, the dust ,noise and heavy traffic, Hyde End Road has become a race track for vehicles, passing through and accessing sites, and is still going on in Spencers Wood. Enough is Enough, we now have a job to get out of our own driveways with the extra amount of traffic that there is now. There are quite a few school children around going to and from schools which has also sparked off quite a potentially dangerous situation due to the weight and speed of traffic recently. Name: Bernadette Norris

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This will bring heavy goods vehicles down a narrow road that has no space for this type of vehicle, there is limited footpath and this will be dangerous for all other road users including cyclists. This area is far too close to the local primary school and nursery, the children will not be able to play safely outside as the noise and air pollution will be over the governments own limits . The ecology in the area will also be devastated , we have Red Kites, Badgers , Water Voles, Barn Owls and Great Crested Newts, There is also evidence of Otters and Sea Trout in The Lodden, the natural beauty of this area and wildlife cannot be replaced . If that was not reason enough we have no idea what the effect would be on flooding in the area and also we have precious archaeological sites that would be destroyed. I object most strongly please do not do this Name: Graham Stanley

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Siting of a gravel pit at this location will bring significant disruption to a group of villages that are already beset by creeping urbanisation. I profoundly doubt that it will be possible to successfully mitigate the effects on air quality, noise, flooding, ecology and archaeology. I believe that the potential effects on traffic and use of the B3349 are considerably understated, particularly with regard to the effect of HGVs on traffic, the spreading of mud on the roads and hazards caused by turning vehicles and poor sight lines. Name: Frances Lancaster

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This will increase traffic congestion past my house. Already I have experienced a huge increase in the traffic due to the housing developments and now struggle to get out of my road in the morning. Your proposed access to the site is not a suitable road for large vehicles and will cause a risk to other vehicles and pedestrians. The villages surrounding this pit as already loosing their character and this pit will further lead to this. Name: Derek Norris

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I wish to object to the possible gravel pit, air quality will be very poor caused by dust clouds and dust soiling ,there will also be a risk to health of children and adults as the Lambs lane primary school is less than 400m away at 370m. there are also other sites close by, a nursery and play area and Swallowfield pre school. Traffic and noise will also be a problem with the amount of hgv lorries on the Basingstoke Rd and at junction 11 of the M4. noise pollution should not exceed 55db, the WHO defines 55 db as the level that can cause issues for a community. the area is a green belt of farmland and provides a distinction between the settlements , there is also a well used footpath bordering the site. flooding could also be a major problem the site is prone to flooding, the river Loddon is close by and would lead to additional flooding elsewhere along the river. the river is of scientific interest and runs along the edge of the site ,wildlife would be impacted ,there are protected species such as Barn owls, red kites, and the great crested newts. the river would likely be polluted with chemicals which would upset the Loddon pondweed which grows there. there is also Archaeology on the site, the WW2 pillbox and anti tank ditch, three listed buildings near the site, as well as the scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court ,a moated site. Name: Alan Gaskell

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Traffic. The proposal would increase the level of pollution and congestion on the B3349. The 1% change figure for HGV traffic on this road is not credible. If the quarry goes ahead access should be on to the A33 Southbound with no access to the B3349. Air Quality and Noise There are houses schools and pre-schools within half a kilometre of the proposed site. Particulate matter and dust from the quarry will carry to these buildings as well as noise pollution. Ecology, Archeaology The River Loddon SSSI runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. This sensitive ecosystem and its wildlife will be disrupted by operations at the proposed site. The site is alos one of high Archjeological potential. Flooding. The development of the site with its attendent hard landscaping and roadways will reduce the ability of the site to absorb the regular flooding especially at the Southern Edge classified a s Flood Zone 2 and 3a. Name: Peter McLean

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] The proposed area is not acceptable for the increase of HGV traffic either going right toward Riseley or left toward SpencersWood. The B3349 road to Spencers Wood has finally been repaired due to light traffic (Cars, Vans & Tractors) wear & tear. Increased heavy vehicles and frequency will quicken the damage to this road. Width of current road is not acceptable for two way traffic if oncoming vehicle is HGV. Suggestion. The Gravel company pay and build for their own entrance directly on to the A33. Bypassing all villages (Riseley,Spencers Wood, Three mile Cross) Air quality. There are at least three schools/nursery from 400m-750m close to propposed site. Finaly, What is to happen with the site when it no longer produces gravel ? Landfill or wasteland would be even more of an eyesore. Yours, Peter McLean Name: Sue Crabtree

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Traffic: The B3349 is in poor quality and not able to sustain increased HGV traffic. Width and bends of the road are not suitable for HGV or the passing of traffic both ways. Air Quality. There are at least 3 schools/nurserys from 370m-750m from the proposed site. What is to happen to the site when it no longer supplies gravel ? Landfill,wasteland would be the next eyesore. Does the gravel company or Woking Borough Council take financial responsibility for returning the used site back to an acceptable view ? If the Council can confirm this , will this come from local taxpayers ? Name: Lianne Yule

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Firstly, The air quality if this site goes ahead will be greatly affected. The children at Lambs Lane school are so close and will impact those with asthma and other lung problems. We from the site and I am concerned about . The road is also overused at this current time, there is potholes galore, flooding and drainage issues. Adding additional traffic to this road will bring added noise, detoriate the road quality and increase the liklihood of accidents as the lorries are wide and large to avoid. Name: James Bridges

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I am objecting due to the reduction of air quality the gravel pit will inevitably bring, whatever the company will say. The dust particles produced from the pit, and a change in wind direction will bring the particles over the nearby villages and schools, will be breathed in and therefore increase the potential for health issues. Lambs Lane primary, Wise Owls Nursery, Warrens Croft Play Area and Swallowfield play area are all within 1km of the proposed extraction site. It is a real shame that local governments continue to think about money instead the residents they represent. I would question where the governors live and has any of the recent planned developments impacted their lives.

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] No Name: LISA FLATHER

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] I am concerned about the lives and livelihood people living and working directly near the proposed site for instance The Mill house Hotel who have built their business for many years Who wants to be taking their vows in the wedding marquee to the sound of diggers and dumper trucks in the back ground? Lambs Farm Business Park where approx 200 people work. Many of the businesses there would no longer be able to operate because of precise nature of their work due to dust from a quarry a few yards away. Little needs to be said about those who's homes are backing on to the site or just yards away. I am also extremely concerned about the proximity to the Loddon River. This is a last vestige of natural life in our area. It is a vital corridor for flora and fauna some very rare. Loddon weed, Loddon Lilies, Snakes Head Fritillaries, King Fishers, I have seen these birds regularly at Sheep Bridge and Kings Bridge both at either end of the proposed site. There are trout, barn owls, tawny owls, little owls, bats and many other interrelated species of fish amphibian and insects and OTTERS, there have been reports locally now for a couple of years that there are otters in the Loddon, spraint and fish kills in Swallowfield Park and at Stanford End, one upstream of the site, the other down stream, the obvious conclusion being that these rare mammals pass through the proposed quarry site. I know one person that has seen otter 100 yards from Kings Bridge at the western edge of the proposed site. I need to say that the sheer sadness I feel when I look across these acres now at the view, trees, hedges, sky, open space that we all need and think that it might be gone soon. Why can it not continue to be crop growing land, growing food and consuming carbon at the same time? Why was a vineyard turned down when these fields have been growing barley, wheat, rape and last year beans, for years? Finally, Lambs Lane that runs round half the site is a safe route for the many horse riders in the area. There are five stable yards immediately in the vicinity all of whom have riders that use Lambs Lane in order to keep off the other local roads as much as possible. The livery yards and the related businesses, hay merchants, feed stores, farriers, saddlers, instructors, fencing contractors etc all of whom are very local employers will all fall if the horses are forced away by losing one of the last remaining quiet lanes in the area, that give access to bridle ways. Name: Tessa Costin

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air Quality: There is an increase in suspended particulate matter near sand and gravel extraction sites, and dust from a quarry can cause visible dust plumes and dust soiling. Particles up to 10 micrometres in diameter are fine enough to be breathed in and can cause detrimental health effects. Larger particles can cause soiling and staining damage when they deposit onto property and trees. Intermediate-sized particles may travel up to 400m. Lambs Lane Primary school is only 370m away, with Wise Owls Nursery 550m, Warren’s Croft Play Area 600m and Swallowfield pre-school 750m. Noise: Quarries cause an increase in noise pollution. Guidance says that total noise from operations should not exceed 55dB, with occasional temporary levels of 70dB. (29dB is the average background noise for UK countryside). The World Health Organisation defines 55dB as the level that can cause health issues for a community. Traffic: This proposal would increase traffic congestion from HGVs on Basingstoke Road and at Junction 11 of the M4. Access to the site is proposed via the B3349 Basingstoke Road, which is a narrow, twisting country road on a hill with central double white lines and a single narrow pavement. It would be almost impossible for a large vehicle to join the B3349 heading towards the M4 without crossing these white lines into the busy oncoming traffic. Villages: This belt of green farmland provides a distinction between the settlements. Further urbanisation would lead to the creation of a single large conurbation covering Three Mile Cross, Spencers Wood, Shinfield, Swallowfield and Riseley. This must be avoided, and the individual character of the villages retained. Bordering the site is a well-used public footpath. Flooding: The proposed site is prone to flooding, with the southern edge of the site classified as flood zone 2 and 3a. By adding the inevitable hardscaping and roadways that will come with a quarry it would reduce the area able to absorb this additional water and increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere along the River Loddon, including in built up areas. It would also result in unknown changes to the natural drainage system. Ecology: The River Loddon Site of Special Scientific Interest runs along the southern edge of the proposed site. It is a very sensitive ecosystem, which acts as a movement corridor for a variety of wildlife, including Protected Species such as Barn Owls, Red Kites and Great Crested Newts. The River Loddon itself is home to Loddon Pondweed, which is very sensitive to inputs of chemical pollutants. Badgers and water voles are known to live in the area, otter spraint has been recorded, and there are recent records of sea trout being identified in the water. Archaeology: The site is also an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is a WW2 pillbox and anti-tank ditch within the site, part of a pattern of artefacts set along an historic defence line. Three listed buildings are near the site, as well as the Scheduled Monument of Sheepbridge Court which is one of very few moated sites in Berkshire. Name: roland denning

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection Name: Wendy Denning

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection Name: Gareth Lockwood

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] This plan is completely unacceptable, we have already surrender so much green space to development, to allow further development for an industrial purpose shouldn't of even been suggested. Name: David Herries

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Hi, I object to these plans for several reasons as listed: the air quality issues that will arise (particularly with it being so close to local schools), the increase in noise levels, the increased volume of traffic, the increased risk of flooding and the terrible impact it will have on on local ecology around the River Loddon. Name: Julie Herries

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Hi, I object to this because of the air pollution it will cause (particularly being so close to a school), the increased noise levels, the increased traffic in the area, the increased risk of flooding in the area and the devastating impact it would have on the ecology to the River Loddon and surrounding areas. Name: David Mitchell

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:3 Section two(a) - Site proposal: Land west of Basingstoke Road

Section two (a) - Site Proposal: Land West of Basingstoke Road Q10 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q14 [Please include your comments on how the proposal does not meet the Test of Soundness.] Air pollution will be increased in an area where there is a concentraction of children. I.e. Lambs Lane School. The immediate area is one of Special Scientific Interest. There are many varieties of rare species that will be affected by pollution, noise and human presence and interference. E.g. The great crested newt and barn owls. Water bourne pollution from chemicals are known to affect the water courses and in this case the River Loddon corridor that has a delicate eco system. The extra heavy traffic movements to and from the gravel extraction site will put pressure on the traffic systems connecting the B3349 Basingstoke Road. One that already suffers from over congestion and degradation of road surfaces, which in-turn increase the risk of accidents and further congestion caused by forced road repair. The gravel extraction site would be inappropriate for the semi-rural nature of the area and would highly affect the nature and character of the surrounding villages. The area already suffers from bad flooding. This would be increased as the site buildings and roads would cause displacement of water. Name: Kartik Hegde

Role:

Organisation:

Responses:

Q2:1 I wish to respond to all sections of the consultation

Section 1: Q3 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection

Q6:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q6:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q6:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q6:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q8 [Are you seeking a change to the proposal?] Yes

Q9 [What change are you seeking?] Refrain from the gravel extraction proposal. Kindly reject. It will harm the ecological area and the trucks cause huge pollution to residents around

Q13:1 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The positively prepared test

Q13:2 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The justification test

Q13:3 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The effectiveness test

Q13:4 [What Test(s) of Soundness do you consider that it fails?] The test of consistency with national policy

Q15 [Are you seeking a change to the policy?] Yes Section two (b): Site Proposal: Area between Horton Brook and Poyle Quarry Q17 [Into which of the following categories does your representation fall (Support/No view/Objection)] Objection