IT IS TIME TO OBJECT
INTRODUCTION TO THIS GUIDE
TRU7 has now submitted their full industrial pit application which means it is time for our community to make our voices heard by objecting. You can view their full application by clicking here.
If you haven't objected already, there is still time to object, but you must do this ASAP. Objections will be considered up until the committee meeting in early 2026. If you objected to the initial screening pre-application last year, you will need to object again now.
The guide is designed to help you write a clear, effective objection. Your own objection does not need to be as long! Just a few sentences or a short paragraph is enough to count - it does not need to be War and Peace. What matters is that you say something.
How do I use the guide and what could I write?
-
This guide outlines 8 key objection areas you may wish to draw on. You do not need to cover all 8 areas - focus on the ones most relevant to you.
-
Write your objection in your own words. DO NOT copy and paste from the guide or your objection will not be counted.
-
Stick to the facts. Avoid personal arguments such as your property value decreasing, which won’t carry weight in planning decisions.
-
It is entirely acceptable to include personal experiences such as how an industrial pit will affect your asthma or mental health. Your full objection will be read by Suffolk County Council, but any personally identifying information will be redacted before your objection is published on the portal.
-
Images speak volumes. Include supporting imagery in your objection e.g., a photograph showing an HGV being forced to straddle the white line. You can submit photographs to support your objection at any time.
-
Consider whether you feel adequately consulted: In Main Appendix 3, TRU7 claims “... the community, its representatives and other interested parties have been given accurate information as to what is proposed and the opportunity to express any concerns.” If this does not reflect your experience, state why in your objection.
-
Local knowledge matters. While your objection must be evidence-based, your insight into how this industrial pit will negatively impact the community is vital.
Where to send your objection:
-
Object online by clicking here.
-
Send an objection by post to: The Planning Section, Strategic Development, Suffolk County Council, Fifth floor, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP1 2BX. Please provide your name and address, and remember to include the planning reference number: SCC/0093/25SC
-
Send an objection by email to planning@suffolk.gov.uk Please provide your name and address, and remember to include the planning reference number: SCC/0093/25SC
A few final important things to remember:
-
Every individual in your household can submit their own objection. If four people live at your address = four separate objections.
-
There is no age limit for who can object, you do not have to be 18.
-
Only evidence-based objections will be accepted.
-
You can object more than once, provided each objection raises new and different points. While only one objection is counted per person, you can submit further objections if new issues are raised later (for example, by statutory consultees such as Highways.)
-
Write your objection in your own words. DO NOT copy and paste from the guide or your objection will not be counted.
Thank you for your support - NOW IS THE TIME TO OBJECT to help stop this industrial pit.
1. HIGHWAY SAFETY AND ROAD NETWORK
1a: Number of HGV movements
The applicant estimates approximately 86 HGV movements per day (plus light vehicle trips), totaling around 473 HGVs per week over a 16‑year period.
TRU7's transport assessment assumes ~90% of traffic will pass through Westerfield, cross the level crossing, and join the A1214. However, this is just one scenario—not a binding commitment. In truth, routing remains uncertain, and all traffic could shift direction depending on circumstances:
-
100% through Witnesham – during closures of Westerfield Road or the level crossing. This is a real possibility, given the planned upcoming closure of the road.
-
Up to 76% via Witnesham even on an average day. Because only 20 HGVs are designated for Sinks Pit; the remainder could be routed via Witnesham depending on market conditions.
-
100% through Westerfield – if conditions or closures force traffic that way.
If traffic is diverted through Witnesham, it won't just affect that village - Swilland and Ashbocking stand directly on that alternative route. This generates a significant risk of heavy vehicle movement through multiple tightly knit, rural communities - not just through Westerfield.
The combination of routing uncertainty and lack of controls means that multiple villages - not just Westerfield - could bear the full weight of the industrial pit traffic, making this proposal wholly unsuitable for narrow rural roads.
1b: B1077: narrow road width
Sections of the B1077 measure 5.27 metres in width, while HGVs typically measure 3 metres wide, including mirrors. Other parts of the B1077, south of the railway line measure 5.5 metres in width, and between Bede Cottage and Dawn Cottage measures 4.93m wide*. This makes it impossible for two HGVs to pass safely in opposing directions, yet this is the proposed route HGVs will take. The applicant’s own assessment claims a consistent 5.5 m-plus carriageway - our spot-checks show narrower sections as little as 4.9 m*.
The road also accommodates agricultural vehicles on a regular basis, particularly during the harvest season, further reducing the ability for large vehicles to pass safely. The combination of quarry HGVs and existing agricultural traffic poses a serious safety concern on this narrow stretch of road.
In addition, the section of the B1077 alongside The Railway Inn, which forms part of the proposed route, measures 5.54 metres in width*. This again demonstrates insufficient width for two HGVs to pass safely and increases the risk to cars and pedestrians entering or exiting The Railway Inn’s car park, as well as to those accessing nearby Westerfield Railway Station. Cars and vans also frequently park along the B1077, further narrowing the road.
*[Source for all above: Geospatial Information System ex IBC]
1c: Risk to pedestrians and cyclists
The narrow width of the B1077 is unsuitable for frequent HGV movements. Larger vehicles, including buses and lorries, are often forced to encroach onto the footpath in order to avoid oncoming traffic. An increase in HGV movements generated by the quarry would substantially heighten the danger to pedestrians using the footpaths along this route.
Although the applicant proposes to improve pedestrian provision by (i) constructing a new 1.5 m-wide footway between Elm Cottage and public footpaths FP006/FP024 and (ii) adding a short infill section with a zebra crossing at the Church Lane/Lower Road junction, these measures do not remedy the chronic pinch-points elsewhere: most notably, on the west (public-house) side of the B1077 outside the Westerfield Swan. The scheme offers “vegetation side-out” only, rather than any carriageway widening, leaving a footway so restricted that the wing-mirrors of two opposing HGVs can still project beyond the kerb and jeopardise pedestrian safety.
Further, HGVs pose a disproportionate risk to vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians. According to Cycling UK, “HGVs account for only 3.6% of non-motorway motor traffic mileage on British roads, yet are involved in around 17.5% of cyclist fatalities. HGVs were also involved in almost 14% of pedestrian fatalities, so pose a serious threat to them too.*”
Given there would be approximately 473 HGV movements each week for 16 years, there is a significant increase in the risk to both cyclists and pedestrians.
*[Source: Cycling UK]
1d: Accident history and increased safety risk at B1077 / Lower Road junction
The crossroads between the B1077 and Lower Road have been the site of road traffic incidents, including several overturned vehicles and at least one incident that required helicopter emergency services. An increase in HGV movements crossing this junction would significantly elevate the risk to other road users, and to cyclists and pedestrians.
Police collision data supplied by the applicant lists one ‘Serious’ accident in the past five years at the Church Lane / Lower Road crossroads; unreported overturns cited locally are therefore anecdotal and do not appear in the official record.
1e: Increased congestion and traffic pressure on the A1214 corridor
The proposed quarry route would direct HGV traffic from the B1077 onto Colchester Road and Valley Road, both part of the A1214 corridor. This corridor already experiences significant congestion, particularly during peak hours. Traffic modelling conducted for the Ipswich Strategic Planning Area indicates that several junctions along the A1214, including those at Colchester Road and Valley Road, are operating at or near capacity. For instance, the A1214 Colchester Road eastern arm is projected to reach 100% volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio during the morning peak by 2026, while the A1214 Valley Road east approach is expected to exceed capacity at 104% V/C during the same period*.
The situation is anticipated to worsen with the completion of the Henley Gate development, which will add up to 1,100 new dwellings in the area. This development is expected to increase traffic volumes on the A1214, further exacerbating congestion issues**.
Additionally, TRU7 has not provided specific figures regarding the number of third-party HGV movements associated with the quarry. This lack of clarity raises concerns about the potential for unquantified increases in heavy vehicle traffic along an already strained corridor.
*[Source: ISPA Local Plan Modelling: Model Run 7 Sensitivity Test]
**[Source: Public Notice Portal]
1f: Impact of increased HGV movements on Westerfield Level Crossing
The proposed increase in HGV traffic along the B1077, necessitating passage over the Westerfield Level Crossing, raises significant concerns about congestion, safety, and the wider impact on the local community. The crossing is controlled by automatic barriers, which currently lower for 78 train movements each weekday, covering both passenger and freight services. These frequent closures already cause significant traffic tailbacks along the B1077 throughout the day. In April 2023, Network Rail recorded barrier closures totalling up to 7 hours 25 minutes and 38 seconds within a 24-hour period*.
Rail traffic on this line is also set to increase further. Network Rail plans up to 8 additional daily freight train movements for the Sizewell C development and 20 freight train movements per day serving Felixstowe port, raising the total daily train movements at Westerfield to 106**. This will significantly increase the amount of time the barriers remain closed, leading to even longer delays and more severe congestion.
Higher volumes of HGVs queuing at the crossing could exacerbate delays, as the signaller will need to keep the barriers down for longer to allow traffic to clear safely. This not only intensifies congestion but also increases risks for pedestrians and other road users. In addition, the combined impact of extended closures and higher volumes of stationary traffic is likely to worsen air quality, increase noise levels, and have a negative effect on the health and well-being of the community.
*[Source: Network Rail]
**[Source: Network Rail]
1g: Traffic entering/exiting at 60MPH speed limit
Quarry traffic will enter and exit the site at a location where the speed limit is 60mph. Slow-moving, heavily laden HGVs entering or joining fast-moving traffic present a significant hazard to oncoming and passing vehicles. Moreover, the full extent of HGV movements remains unclear, as TRU7 cannot confirm or quantify how many third-party suppliers will be collecting aggregate from the site. This uncertainty further increases the potential safety risk.
The application undertakes to fund a Traffic Regulation Order to reduce the speed limit from 60mph to 40mph on the B1077 between the golf-course bend and the existing 30mph terminal signs, but provides no evidence that this reduction would be enforced or sufficient to mitigate the HGV hazard.
2. WESTERFIELD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
The Westerfield Neighbourhood Plan was formally adopted ("made") by East Suffolk Council on 19th May 2025, following a referendum with a 61.2% voter turnout - twice the national average for neighbourhood plan referendums - and 96% voting in favour. The overwhelming level of public support reflects the strong concerns of local residents to protect the village from developments, such as the proposed quarry, which would have a harmful impact on the community. As a statutory part of the development plan for the area, the Westerfield Neighbourhood Plan holds significant weight in planning decisions within the area. Under planning law, all applications must be determined in accordance with development plans, which includes the Westerfield Neighbourhood Plan.
The proposed quarry would conflict with several of the Westerfield Neighbourhood Plan’s key policies:
2a: Protection of local character and landscape
The Westerfield Neighbourhood Plan emphasises the importance of preserving the rural character and landscape of Westerfield. The introduction of a quarry would likely lead to significant alterations in the landscape, increased noise, and dust pollution, which would be contrary to the plan's clear aims to preserve the village’s countryside setting.
Furthermore, The land proposed for the quarry sits within an area of open countryside that the Plan designates as part of a protective "green ring" surrounding the settlement boundary. This landscape is specifically identified as sensitive and in need of protection from development. The Plan (at paragraph 6.12) highlights that the farmland opposite historic buildings such as Westerfield Hall and Swans Nest is integral to the setting of these heritage assets, and that development on these fields would cause harm to their significance.
2b: Traffic and road safety concerns
The Plan highlights concerns about traffic volumes and road safety within the parish. The operation of a quarry would result in increased HGV movements, exacerbating existing traffic issues and posing safety risks to residents, particularly in areas with narrow roads and limited infrastructure.
2c: Environmental and biodiversity Impact
Preservation of local biodiversity and natural habitats is a core principle of the Plan. Quarrying activities could disrupt local ecosystems, harm wildlife, and degrade natural habitats, undermining the environmental goals set forth in the Plan.
2d: Community wellbeing and quality of life
The Plan seeks to enhance the wellbeing and quality of life for residents by maintaining a peaceful and healthy environment. The vibration, noise, silica dust, and increased traffic associated with quarry operations would negatively impact the daily lives of residents, contradicting the Plan's goal to protect the peaceful, healthy environment of the village.
In light of these considerations, the proposed quarry development does not align with the policies and objectives of the Westerfield Neighbourhood Plan and does not comply with the established development framework to uphold the interests and wellbeing of the community.
3. HERITAGE ASSETS AND VALUED LANDSCAPE
The proposed quarry would directly conflict with national policies that protect heritage assets. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out clear guidance on the protection of designated heritage assets, including listed buildings. The site proposed for the quarry falls within the setting of the following important heritage assets: the Grade II* listed Westerfield Hall, the Grade II listed Westerfield Hall Barns Complex, and the Grade II listed Swan’s Nest.
Under the NPPF, any development which would cause harm to the setting of a Grade II listed building must be justified by an exceptional case, and any development affecting the setting of a Grade II* listed building must be justified by a wholly exceptional case. In this instance, no such exceptional justification has been provided for the quarry at Westerfield.
The harm that would be caused to these nationally important heritage assets by introducing a large-scale industrial pit into their setting cannot be justified. As no exceptional or wholly exceptional circumstances exist, national planning policy requires that permission for the quarry be refused.
4. SUFFOLK WASTE AND MINERALS PLAN
The proposed quarry at Westerfield is inconsistent with the Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan (SMWLP), adopted in July 2020, which outlines the county's strategy for mineral extraction up to 2036. When preparing the plan, Suffolk County Council reviewed 20 possible quarry sites. Using a detailed assessment and a “traffic light” system, 10 sites were approved, and 10 were rejected. One approved site was subsequently disallowed, leaving nine quarries to provide Suffolk’s identified need of aggregates, including a reserve stockpile, until 2036. Westerfield was not included among the sites, and is not part of the East Suffolk development plan, making it a windfall site (as identified by the National Planning Policy Framework.) Such windfall sites should only be approved if they meet strict criteria — including a proven need, which does not exist in this case.
The SMWLP highlights the importance of locating mineral extraction sites in proximity to the strategic road network to minimise transportation impact. Westerfield does not benefit from direct access to such infrastructure. Instead, the quarry’s projected HGV traffic - which would amount to almost 500 HGV movements each week for up to 16 years - would travel on local rural roads, particularly the B1077, which is unsuited to accommodate such heavy vehicle volumes safely.
The proposed quarry does not align with the strategic objectives and site allocations of the Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The Plan has already identified sufficient licensed quarry sites to meet Suffolk’s needs for sand and gravel until at least 2036, including a reserve stockpile. Current quarries are also not operating at full capacity, and the county’s existing supply more than meets both current and future demand. This concludes that the application for this quarry is not driven by any new public need for mineral extraction in Suffolk - but by private commercial interests. Its development would contravene established policies aimed at ensuring sustainable mineral extraction and protecting the well-being of local communities.
5. BUSINESS IMPACT
The proposed quarry could negatively affect a wide range of local businesses that rely on the tranquillity, natural beauty and accessibility of the Fynn Valley area. These include pubs, cafés, wedding venues, tourism providers, and hospitality outlets that together contribute significantly to the rural economy and local employment. Among the most affected is Fynn Valley Golf Club (FVGC), a nationally recognised leisure destination and major local employer. The following section outlines how the quarry threatens the club’s viability and, by extension, the wider rural business ecosystem.
Fynn Valley Golf Club
Established rural enterprise: FVGC has traded since 1991 and is nationally recognised as England Golf’s Most Welcoming Club (2017). It operates an 18-hole parkland course, a 9-hole par-3 course, a 22-bay flood-lit driving range, teaching studio, golf shop and the award-winning Fynn Valley Café Terrace wedding and events venue opened in 2018*.
In addition to 600+ playing members the club attracts visiting golfers, wedding parties, conference delegates, caravan-site guests and café customers year-round. Public job adverts show regular recruitment for chefs, front-of-house and green-keeping staff, indicating a workforce of several dozen across hospitality and course maintenance**.
*[Source: Fynn Valley]
**[Source: Fynn Valley - Join our team]
5a: How the quarry would damage Fynn Valley Golf Club
Dust deposition on greens and terraces, plus intrusive HGV noise, undermines the “escape to the countryside” brand on which golf, weddings and hospitality trade. This could result in significant job losses at Fynn Valley Golf Club, as well as other local businesses.
5b: National Planning Policy Framework
The application conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 85 and 88 because it jeopardises the continued viability and planned expansion of Fynn Valley Golf Club - a long-established rural leisure business that sustains more local jobs than the quarry would create. Dust, noise, traffic delays and landscape intrusion would deter paying visitors, force investment to be cancelled and could lead to net job losses. Planning policy places significant weight on protecting existing rural enterprises and supporting their future growth; on that basis alone the application should be refused.
Paragraph 85 — planning decisions should “help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt, taking into account local business needs”.*
Paragraph 88(c) — in rural areas, decisions should enable “sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside”.*
[Source: NPPF]
6. WATER AND HYDROLOGY
Risk to water supply
The red-line application site lies entirely within Source Protection Zone 3, with the boundary of SPZ 2 approximately 190m to the south of the proposed extraction area. These zones are designated to protect groundwater sources used for public drinking water supply. Quarry excavation in this sensitive area poses a serious risk of contamination to the groundwater that supplies drinking water locally, including the nearby borehole at Westerfield / Lower Road.
In addition, Anglian Water has confirmed that any water abstraction licence would be limited to 20 cubic metres per day*. They have indicated that this volume is not substantial and would likely be insufficient to meet the water demands of quarry operations. This raises further concerns about both the viability of the proposed quarry and the potential strain on local water resources.
Furthermore, Suffolk County Council’s assessment of potential quarry sites, using their sustainability framework, assigned a ‘negative’ rating to all sites located within a Source Protection Zone (SPZ). The proposed Westerfield Quarry falls within SPZ3 and directly adjacent to SPZ2.
*[Source: Anglian Water]
7. HEALTH RISKS
Independent health authorities agree that long-term exposure to fine dust, traffic noise and heavy-vehicle vibration increases the risks of respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease and sleep disturbance in the general population. TRU7’s quarry would subject the community to all three hazards, day in and day out, for 16 years. Because the proposed controls cannot guarantee that WHO and UK health-based guidelines will always be met, the project poses an unacceptable and inadequately mitigated risk to public health.
7a: Fine airborne dust (PM₁₀ and PM₂.₅)
Public Health England calls air pollution “the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK”, estimating 28,000–36,000 premature deaths a year from long-term exposure to fine particulate matter*. Independent field research in 2020 compared two villages located within 500m of active quarries with a control community further away. The exposed group reported significantly higher eye and nasal allergy (22% vs. 3%,) eye soreness (18% vs. 1%,) and dryness (17% vs. 3,) chest tightness (9% vs. 1%,) and chronic cough (11% vs. 0%) compared to the control group. Lung function parameters were significantly lower among the exposed group, and they had higher levels of airway restrictions in comparison. Among the exposed group, lunch function parameters worsened with the increasing closeness of home to the quarry site.*
The Westerfield scheme would run for 16 years, handling 1.7 million tonnes of sand-and-gravel and generating ≈473 HGV movements every week; excavation, crushing, haul-roads and idling HGV queues at the level crossing will all add fugitive fine airborne dust (PM₁₀ and PM₂.₅) to the village air-shed. Because the applicant offers no publicly visible PM monitors, residents would have no early-warning system when pollution spikes occur.
*[Source: .GOV publications]
**[Source: MDPI]
7b: Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS)
The sand and gravel at Westerfield (Red Crag and Lowestoft Till) naturally contain RCS - yet the application offers no round-the-clock, publicly visible silica-dust monitoring. In practice the community would have to trust the operator to police itself.
7c: Ground-borne and traffic-induced vibration
Several homes on the B1077 stand within 10 metres of the carriageway, yet the application offers no special road surfacing or vibration-dampening measures. They only offer driver training and an unapproved 40mph buffer. There is no independent monitoring to check whether drivers will follow the training, so in practice the vibrations could continue unchecked for the quarry’s entire 16-year life. Residents are therefore likely to be exposed to chronic, low-frequency vibration for the lifetime of the quarry.
7d: Why the applicant’s controls do not cancel the risk
Administrative measures (water bowsers, speed limits, white-noise alarms) depend on weather, machinery and perfect human compliance; any lapse immediately places residents at risk.
The scheme includes no public-facing monitors for PM₂.₅, PM₁₀ or Respirable Crystalline Silica and no vibration sensors, so the community has no independent way to verify that limits are being met.
Acoustic bunds mainly attenuate mid-frequency sound; they do little for the low-frequency engine noise and vibration most strongly linked to cardiovascular stress.
8. ECOLOGY
The applicant’s reliance on future habitat creation and 30-year management agreements is no substitute for safeguarding the functioning hedgerows, field margins and bat corridors that exist today. On that basis the proposal poses an unacceptable and inadequately mitigated risk to the ecological integrity of Westerfield and its surrounding countryside.
8a: Habitat loss and fragmentation
The application site covers 16.34 ha of open farmland, hedgerows and field margins that the Westerfield Neighbourhood Plan identifies as part of the protective “green ring” around the village settlement boundary*.
Turning this land into a quarry for the next 16 years would punch a wide gap in that ring and sever wildlife corridors. Ecologists warn that even a single new haul road can fragment habitats, increase ‘edge’ effects and cut local species richness for decades. A global review published in PLOS ONE states: “Roads and vehicular traffic are among the most pervasive of threats to biodiversity because they fragment habitat, increase mortality and open up new areas for exploitation.”
In other words, once the green ring is broken, birds, bats, small mammals and pollinating insects will find it harder to move, feed and breed - damage that cannot simply be “put back” when the quarrying finally ends.
*[Source: Westerfield Neighbourhood Plan]
**Source: Journals.plos]
8b: Road-kill of hedgehogs and small mammals
“Local and national studies suggest that road mortality can cause significant depletions in [European hedgehog] populations predominantly removing adult males.”* Because the B1077 runs within 10 metres of garden boundaries and lacks continuous grassy verges for wildlife to escape to, the additional 473 HGV movements every week would sharply increase the chance of road-kill for hedgehogs, frogs, and other small mammals trying to move between gardens and wider countryside.
*[Source: PMC]
8c: Limits of the promised “+98 % Biodiversity Net Gain”
The applicant claims a headline gain of +98% habitat units, achieved mainly by creating new woodland, ponds and grassland after quarrying finishes and then managing them for 30 years. However, 30 years is a minimum, not the lifespan of a habitat. A UK study that tracked 133 woodland-creation sites ages 10 - 160 years concluded that: “it takes between 80 and 160 years for woodland creation sites to develop certain vegetation attributes similar to those of mature ancient woodlands”*. If management lapses or funding stops after year 31, the promised gain may never materialise.
Biodiversity net gain (BNG) delivery nationwide is lagging: the first-year review of England’s BNG law found only half the minimum habitat area actually delivered, with experts warning of “significant enforcement gaps”**.
Most of the gain sits outside the red-line, in an off-site “Biodiversity Enhancement Area.” If that land changes hands or management funding falters, the uplift could evaporate while the ecological loss will remain permanent.
*[Source: Academic.oup]
**[Source: The Guardian]