Objection is not a personal one

0
Have your say

In response to Mr Wilson’s letter published on May 6 entitled ‘Pleasure from Quarry for how many?’ – I am reluctantly responding to this letter, as I am uncomfortable with providing Mr Wilson with yet another platform to state his uninformed and questionable arguments given the fact that this will in no way as previously stated have any direct impact on a writer living in Sovereign Harbour.

This leads me to concur that he must have some vested interest in this project by his level of interest.

To make personal statements of hypocrisy and nimbyism do nothing to support his arguments.

My objection to this proposal is not a personal one but one as part of a small, tight knit community (of which we have been part of for nine years, not recent as stated by Mr Wilson) who do not wish to be subjected for five years to incessant HGVs disturbing the enjoyment of our living conditions when the quarry has been dormant for 20 years and had been left to return to nature until the applicants recent proposals now to restore, when there has been 20 years to do this!

The local people would not benefit in any way from this alleged ‘restoration’ project, which for five years has no financial gain to them but has to the applicant.

Quite the reverse, the local community would have five years of untold misery from dust, noise, road degradation, lack of access to their properties during the day and Saturday morning, intrusive activity and most of all for no actual benefit.

There is no public access, the surrounding land is privately owned and therefore landlocked, so how will this become an amenity for dog walkers, horse riders and cyclists when there is no legitimate access. I have no intention to respond further to Mr. Wilson as I have said everything that has to be said on this matter, other than would he want all this activity outside his house and within his local community?

J. Gayton

Filching