01/11/06

Lafarge confirm to ENRAGED that options on two sites have been surrendered. Lafarge write to ENRAGED confirming that it had completed a Supplemental Agreement with the Estate on 21st September under which the company had surrendered its option rights on two of the other sites on the Estate. (PDF ???K)

28/04/06

NCC write to Lafarge following Highways review. NCC write to Lafarge informing it of the review undertaken and making it clear that the views on highways issues given previously by Highway Authority officers should not be used by Lafarge in assessing the merits of any future application since that would be subject to a fresh and comprehensive re-assessment by the Highways Authority with a different officer handling the case. (PDF ???K)

18/04/06

NCC meet with ENRAGED. Through the efforts of Cllr. Burrell, NCC meet with ENRAGED and Ditchingham Parish Council to discuss Highways issues. Minutes included herewith. (PDF 73K)

DocH0780

06/04/06

ENRAGED instruct Leathes Prior (solicitors). Concerned with regard to the conduct & governance exercised by NCC in the processing of the [Ditchingham] application, ENRAGED instruct Leathes Prior solicitors to pursue the issue with Adrian Gunson (Cabinet Member for Planning & Transportation), and Mike Jackson (Director of Planning & Transportation).  (PDF 142K)

DocH0770

31/03/06

ENRAGED meet with Ditchingham Estate. Representatives of ENRAGED and Hedenham Parish Meeting meet with Viscount Tamworth and Savill's for a frank and full discussion

30/03/06

NCC respond to ENRAGED FoI request. While not immediately apparent from the cover letter the information request appears to confirm ENRAGED’s concerns that the Minerals & Waste department has not applied proper process in their review of this application. (PDF 1208K)

DocH0760

29/03/06

ENRAGED correspond with Lafarge. Put simply, despite the objective of the photo shoot to agree definitive photographs, Lafarge has reneged on the spirit of that agreement. Lafarge and their agents clearly extend little courtesy in commercial transactions. That said, we enquire if perhaps Lafarge has a different agenda?  (PDF 95K)

DocH0740

21/03/06

Ditchingham Parish Council copy their expression of dissatisfaction. And demand that DPC expects that NCC respect their views. (PDF 31K)

DocH0730

21/03/06

Ditchingham Parish Council write to NCC. Reading more like a ‘soap opera’ every day and unaccustomed to being so curtly dismissed by any County Council officer, DPC escalate the nonsense emanating from the highways department to the Director of Planning and Transportation. (PDF 113K)

DocH0720

20/03/06

Lafarge provide copy photographs. Following the taking of photographs from Ditchingham Hall, contrary to agreement Lafarge distribute photographs endorsed with worthless subjective opinion. (PDF 43K)

DocH0710

19/03/06

ENRAGED request information under FOI. Angered by the already evident lack of procedural rigour exercised by NCC our members express concern over the recent appearance of Lafarge Contracting performing highways maintenance on the B1332 and A143. ENRAGED use FoI to establish the contract award process. (PDF 373K)

DocH0705

17/03/06

ENRAGED ensure that their FOI request is known.  Simply by copying correspondence ENRAGED ensure maximum leverage from their actions and copy the 13/03/06 FOI request widely. (PDF 35K)

DocH0700

13/03/06

NCC respond to Ditchingham Parish Council. The highways department provide an astonishingly inappropriate response to DPC, put simply the highways department attitude falls not far short of ‘put up or shut up’. (PDF 48K)

DocH0690

13/03/06

ENRAGED request information under FOI. Given the disarray with which it appears NCC has allowed the application files to be maintained ENRAGED enquire under FOI of the internal processes and procedures used by the Minerals and Waste planning department at County Hall. (PDF 96K)

DocH0680

09/03/06

Ditchingham Parish Council copy correspondence. Following the practice adopted by ENRAGED DPC ensure maximum impact by copying correspondence ‘widely’. They copy their letter to Mike Jackson, NCC, Director of Planning & Transportation. (PDF 42K)

DocH0670

09/03/06

Ditchingham Parish Council write to Lafarge. Noting that Lafarge has not extended the courtesy to respond to their letter of 13/01/06 DPC seeks clarification of the status of the application and of the dialogue on Highways matters between NCC and Lafarge. (PDF 217K)

DocH0660

08/03/06

ENRAGED join Lafarge to joint photo shoot at Ditchingham Hall. The purpose of which is to agree a definitive set of photographs to support both sides expert’s opinions in the Historic Landscape debate. Photos will be published here. (PDF tbaK)

DocH0650

08/03/06

ENRAGED inspect the application files at NCC. Given that the application is ‘currently withdrawn’ the files are available for inspection as part of the public record. We were astonished at the apparent absence of evidence procedural controls.

02/03/06

ENRAGED copy correspondence. Convinced of an apparent lack of transparency across local government, ENRAGED continue their approach of ensuring maximum impact by copying correspondence ‘widely’. This time we copy our letter of 01/03/06 to Cllr. Alan Burrell. (PDF 43K)

DocH0640

01/03/06

ENRAGED write to NCC Cllr. Alan Burrell. Not satisfied by NCC response to their FoI request, ENRAGED request that Cllr. Burrell take up the issue with the appropriate authorities at County Hall. (PDF 92K)

DocH0630

23/02/06

ENRAGED correspond with Lafarge.  To agree dates for the photo shoot, and challenge Lafarge over the application process. (PDF 100K)

DocH0620

23/02/06

NCC respond to ENRAGED FoI request. While not evident in the NCC cover letter, ENRAGED’s concerns that the highways department has not applied proper process in their review of this application are confirmed by the FoI disclosure and subsequent communications. (PDF 870K)

09/02/06

ENRAGED request information under FOI. Astonished by the highways department attitude and opinion that there is ‘no fundamental highways objection’ ENRAGED request evidence of process and procedure by which the highways department has arrived that opinion. (PDF 73K)

DocH0610

08/02/06

Lafarge agree jo1nt photographic session at Ditchingham Hall. Photo shoot (PDF tbaK)

DocH0600

03/02/06

Lafarge withdraw 'current application'. This is not good news. Rather a stay of execution. But not all is lost. (PDF 388K)

DocH0550

01/02/06

NCC respond to GHB. Confirming that highways advice on the application is that there will not be highways objection to the application. (PDF 46K)

DocH0590

20/01/06

Ditchingham Parish Council write to ENRAGED. Simply confirming their support and remarking 'a text book example of how a David can beat a Goliath'. (PDF 648K)

DocH0540

19/01/06

GHB write to NCC.  Expressing surprise and requesting that NCC clarify the basis of their opinion. (PDF 615K)

DocH0535

19/01/06

ENRAGED write to Lafarge. We write again to Dyfrig James thanking him for his response, but draw his attention that he has given little consideration to the issues raised in our letter 12th January. We request a further response that concludes 'we do not want to receive a reply that is inappropriate, contains PR script, or is simply bluff'.  We wait.... (PDF 42K)

DocH0530

17/01/06

NCC respond to GHB. In response to [apparent] consideration of the ENRAGED highways expert’s report NCC write to GHB indicating tha there are no safety issues on the B1332... (PDF 1426K)

DocH0525

16/01/06

Lafarge respond to ENRAGED. Dyfrig James responds to our letter of 12^th January. Notwithstanding that we requested a specific response from Lafarge this latest communication is yet another example of the Lafarge PR engine working overtime. The least that we expect is the courtesy of a relevant response...  (PDF 1257K)

DocH0520

13/01/06

Ditchingham Parish Council respond to Lafarge. Commenting on the letter from Lafarge (10^th January) saying that they they remain unconvinced and are particularly disappointed that Lafarge now acknowledge that HGV  vehicle movements could be significantly higher than that included in the formal application. (PDF 60K)

DocH0510

12/01/06

ENRAGED write to Lafarge. Acknowledging the Lafarge letter to Ditchingham Parish Council is clearly a desperate PR exercise we call Bruno Lafont's bluff and request that the UK management of Lafarge [Dyfrig James UK LAL MD] explain themselves. We wait.... (PDF 74K)

DocH0500

10/01/06

Lafarge respond to Ditchingham Parish Council. Responding to the Parish Council's letter of 21^st December, the Lafarge PR engine is clearly desperate to pour oil on troubled water. The response only provides to demonstrate yet more 'smoke and mirrors' with no willingness to offer a legal undertaking not to proceed with the 'other' planning considerations, and no calculations to support their (now) revised traffic movements. That Lafarge has the audacity to insult the intelligence of the local community in this ridiculous fashion is astonishing. ENRAGED will respond appropriately. (PDF 598K)

DocH0490

09/01/06

Environment Agency OBJECTS to application. The Environment Agency as on official consultee OBJECTS to the application. This is an important milestone and a big boost to the campaign. (PDF 172K)

DocH0485

05/01/06

GHB write to NCC. GHB are ENRAGED’s retained experts on highways matters, we write identifying the conclusions drawn from the report. (PDF tbaK)

DocH0482

21/12/05

Lafarge respond to ENRAGED. At last? M. Bruno Lafont acknowledges ENRAGED, but yet amazingly manages to avoid any direct response to correspondence. Naively perhaps he comments that he would be grateful if all correspondence be addressed to the country manager Mr. Dyfrig James... rest assured M. Lafont. Dyfrig James has a lot to answer for, including the dismissive attitude of his UK operations staff. The least that we expect is the courtesy of a relevant response...  (PDF 154K)

DocH0480

21/12/05

Ditchingham Parish Council respond to Lafarge. Commenting on the letter from Lafarge (9^th December) saying that it does nothing to allay local residents fears. (PDF 389K)

DocH0470

19/12/05

Ditchingham Parish Council lodge their formal representation with NCC. The Parish Council provide their considered response to NCC recommending that the application be refused. (PDF 190K)

DocH0460

13/12/05

ENRAGED write to Ditchingham Parish Council. And copy widely their comments in response to the Lafarge letter of 9^th December to Ditchingham Parish Council. (PDF 100K)

DocH0450

12/12/05

Ditchingham Parish Meeting. The Parish Meeting was attended by some 40 residents where a clear opposition to the proposed scheme was voiced. Following the parish meeting a special meeting of the Parish Council was held where it was agreed that the Parish Council would recommend to NCC that the proposal be refused in the strongest possible terms [for a multitude of reasons.. see letter 19^th December].

09/12/05

Lafarge respond to Ditchingham Parish Council. And decline the Parish Council's request to attend the parish meeting but take the opportunity to advise the clerk of further developments and clarifications that might be of interest to members & residents. The letter is pure spin and a poor [if not an increasingly desperate] attempt to distract the community from the facts.  (PDF 929K)

DocH0440

07/12/05

ENRAGED Residents Meeting. Our Residents Meeting was attended by some 70 residents where we outlined the status of the application and the process ahead. Clearly a level of attendance that confirms significant and continued local opposition to the scheme (particularly in the middle of winter).

06/12/05

Lafarge SA respond to Ditchingham Parish Council.  The French respond to the Parish Council's letter, yet totally avoid any comment with regard to Council's invitation to visit. It is similar to the standard response that we are becoming increasingly familiar with from Lafarge, and whilst the letter is signed by M. Lafont... the Council's letter was to M. Collomb. It would be reasonable (we would hope) to expect at least a reference to the invitation. If this is an example of the corporate standard that Lafarge [self] promotes as willingness for community involvement... there is little hope!  (PDF 723K)

DocH0430

05/12/05

Lafarge respond to ENRAGED. And decline our invitation to attend the ENRAGED residents meeting on 7^th December. So much for community involvement! (PDF 1695K)

DocH0420

02/12//05

Lafarge respond to ENRAGED. Dyfrig James UK Managing Director acknowledges receipt of ENRAGED letter (18/11/05) but has little substance. (PDF 633K)

30/11//05

ENRAGED invite Lafarge to Residents Meeting. In the spirit of full and free consultation ENRAGED invite Lafarge (Stuart Anderson, Ruth Rolls [RR Communications] & John Gough [DL Walker]) to the Residents meeting. (PDF 73K)

26/11/05

ENRAGED distribute news letter. The news letter advertises the next ENRAGED residents meeting (Broome Village Hal on 7^th December) and provides local residents with a summary of the implications of the proposed Lafarge scheme, including the smoke and mirrors PR spin that Lafarge shrouds it with. The news letter suggests that local residents may wish to use this information to inform any letters of objection that they may choose to write. (PDF 374K)

18/11/05

ENRAGED write to Dyfrig James (Managing Director Lafarge UK Operations). This letter includes copies of the correspondence to his French colleagues (M. Collomb, Lafont, and Kasriel), copy press coverage, and enquires why it is that Lafarge decline to consult with the community. (PDF 87K)

18/11/05

Ditchingham Parish Council write to M. Collomb (Chairman Lafarge Group). Following a request from the public at the parish council meeting 7th November, the parish council invite M. Collomb to come to Ditchingham and see for himself the destruction that Lafarge propose. Local residents are happy to provide accommodation and the Community of All Hallows has also offered for him to stay there. (This letter is in French). (PDF 52K)

14/11/05

ENRAGED write to M. Lafont (CEO (designate) of Lafarge Group).  Congratulating M. Lafont on his appointment, we acknowledge that he, responsible for 77,000 employees, with operations in 75 countries, and with revenues of €14.4m, is unlikely to be aware of a local scheme like Ditchingham... but nonetheless he should. So we tell him! Of the destruction, the PR spin that Lafarge use, the lack of community consultation, and of the apparently dismissive approach that LAL has of UK planning regulation. (This letter is in French). We include as annexes: LAL PR press release and the NTS, ENRAGED's information pack and commentary to the NTS, extracts from the NMLP, and a history of the scheme... including the 'smoke and mirrors' told through copy correspondence with DL Walker. (PDF 108K)

14/11/05

DL Walker send J Green copy of full ES. J Green, J Chadd, and the Parish Councils (Ditchingham and Hedenham) are sent a full copy of the Environmental Statement by Lafarge. (PDF 619K)

09/11/05

Lafarge respond to J Green. Responding to J Green's letter to DL Walker dated 2nd November. At the discretion of LAL copies of the ES will be sent  free of charge to Messrs Chadd & Green, but as the application has now been submitted Lafarge (Stuart Anderson) sees  'no further benefit in continuing this correspondence ... and has instructed DL Walker accordingly'. ENRAGED would contend that this affirms the remarks made in our letter to DL Walker. (PDF 361K)

03/11/05

ENRAGED copy DL Walker letter widely. The letter to DL Walker dated 02 November concerns serious matters. ENRAGED consider that it is important that stakeholders are aware of Lafarge's 'tactics'. (PDF 77K)

02/11/05

J Green writes to DL Walker. Concerned that DL Walker are alleging the publication of 'disinformation', J Green requests that JW Gough retracts these potentially defamatory remarks. J Green contends that, as DL Walker and Lafarge has not challenged (but has had plenty of time and opportunity to do so) other remarks and requests for clarification against which Lafarge has chosen to be silent, are clearly sticky territory!  (PDF 96K)

11/11/05

Site Notices & Public Advertisement. Site and other notices were posted and the application was advertised in the EDP today (11 November 2005).

07/11/05

Ditchingham Parish Council meeting. Attended by some 50 members of the public ENRAGED were again invited by the Parish Council to report to the meeting (as a formal agenda item) and take questions from the public. At a vote at the request of the public, the Parish Council confirmed their objection to the scheme and thanked ENRAGED, extending their full support for the campaign. Recognising that this is an important issue for the village with much local interest, a Parish Meeting was called for 12th November. ENRAGED thank the Parish Council for their support.

17/10/05

Residents go into battle. In response to Lafarge submitting their planning application local residents declare battle has commenced by mounting a poster board campaign. See link to news for press coverage. Check out ENRAGED action plans page for more info.

12/10/05

DL Walker respond to J Green. Some acknowledgement as requested. But the content is quite worrying & offers no assurances with regard the scope of the scheme. Indeed, now the application is submitted DL Walker advise that further requests for clarification should be channeled through the MPA (Minerals Planning Authority). (PDF923K). And still Lafarge not acknowledge INRAGED as a legitimate organisation to reply to!

11/10/05

Lafarge submit application. Hot news.. Lafarge has submitted the planning application. It will still take a few days to process. (ie before it is assigned a file a file and given an application number, is advertised in the local press, and for site notices to be placed). But none the less the clock is now ticking.

10/10/05

Lafarge publish copy of the NTS. (Non Technical Summary).. Lots of pictures & very few words. Those that do exist are worrying. Not least that the letter is published on Lafarge READYMIX  branded paper!  (PDF102K)

09/10/05

ENRAGED sign vandalised. On the evening of Sunday 09 October our large sign [SAY NO TO QUARRY] located on the B1332 was vandalised (torn down). Given that this is in a dangerous location, that requires ladders, or a high back vehicle to access from the main road. Is this really an act of petty vandalism? or one of organised  denial of local residents democratic right to campaign against the destruction of the environment? And against stated County Council minerals planning policy. ENRAGED do not know the answer.. but have reported the incident to the local police, Lafarge , Savills, and the Ditchingham Estate!

04/10/05

ENRAGED respond to DL Walker. Making it absolutely clear that ENRAGED will provide traffic information... when the time is right. But perhaps Lafarge would care to acknowledge the other matters... WHY are DL Walker silent on these issues? Surely these issues can not be that complicated..... ?       (PDF 95K)

30/09/05

DL Walker write to J Green. Clearly frustrated by J Green's letter of 24th September, yet surprisingly silent on the content of the letter that relates to matters of more significant concern. But why does Lafarge not acknowledge ENRAGED as a legitimate organisation to reply to?

24/09/05

ENRAGED respond to DL Walker. With regard to their letter of 19/09/05 ENRAGED will provide the appropriate damage only accident data (and also on behalf the the Parish Council) and in doing so remind DL Walker that there are greater concerns.

19/09/05

DL Walker write to Parish Council. Requesting information on 'damage only accidents....' .

14/09/05

ENRAGED Hold Residents meeting. The Residents meeting held at Broome Village Hall  was a big success. We were pleased to welcome our MP, Richard Bacon who confirmed his full support. ENRAGED presented to over 120 interested residents a detailed assessment of the proposals as presently outlined by Lafarge using the original Lafarge exhibition materials and our own photographs, plans and maps of the area together with its detailed local knowledge of the site and the road from which it is accessed. We received good local press and radio coverage.  Also distributed at the meeting was a booklet outlining the scope and implications of the scheme. Click opposite for a copy of the booklet (PDF 745K)

DocH0150

07/09/05

Norfolk County Council. Respond to DL Walker re scoping opinion. Clearly Lafarge need to do more. Note in particular comment on Traffic & Highways.. 'The Highway Authority advise there are no records of discussion..... '.

05/09/05

Ditchingham Parish Council meeting. Attended by some 40 members of the public ENRAGED were invited by the Parish Council to report to the meeting (as a formal agenda item) and take questions from the public. ENRAGED thank the Parish Council for their support.

01/09/05

ENRAGED Launch web site.  As from 01/09/05 this web site will be fully operational and will be keep you up to date with latest news. Our dedicated phone number (01986 895700) is now operational. Our mailing address is ENRAGED, PO BOX 809, Ditchingham, BUNGAY, Suffolk,  NR35 2WF.

27/08/05

ENRAGED Announce Residents meeting. This will be held at Broome Village Hall on 14th September at 8:00pm and will be open to all bona fide  residents (where ever they live). (PDF 621K)

DL Walker respond to Parish Council. ENRAGED comment.. whilst this is encouraging, we believe that much of this responses must be regarded with caution. For example, while indicating that Lafarge will not now promote the Readymix concrete plant… it offers no assurance! ie Planning applications get modified. (PDF 1913K)

Ditchingham Parish Council write to Lafarge. ENRAGED comment.. this clearly sets out degree of public resistance to the scheme and summarises the main areas of concern. (PDF 1048K)

ENRAGED is launched. Local residents meet to launch ENRAGED. Our action plan is drawn up.

Ditchingham Parish Council meeting. Attended by some 32 members of the public the Agenda item ‘sand & gravel’ is discussed with passion. Also present were Alan Burrell (Norfolk County Councillor) and Richard Carden (South Norfolk District Councillor). The Parish Council and both Alan Burrell and Richard Carden declare their full support towards the creation of a residents action group. This group is now known as ENRAGED.

Lafarge mount public exhibition. ENRAGED comment.. the exhibition consisted of a number of display boards identifying the scope of the scheme, the working and restoration plans and mapping out the [planning] process. There were lots of consultants present, but the landscape and ecology consultant was sick and was not substituted. It was evident that the traffic plans were ill-informed as these had been based on the B1332 with a 60mph speed limit! Our view is that the exhibition was a PR exercise. Local residents hand out their own ‘fact sheet’.  (PDF 2829K)  (PDF 1090K)  (PDF 621K)

DocH0080b

DocH0080c

Local residents meet. ‘Enraged’ by the ‘underhanded’ manner in which this scheme is unfolding local residents take it upon themselves to advertise the Lafarge exhibition more widely. They distribute more than 100 of their own fact sheets (together with the Lafarge literature) to residents in or close to the site and the Norwich Road in Ditchingham and Hedenham. For many residents, this is the first that they have heard of the scheme! (PDF 2679K)

Lafarge issue press release. EDP contact Julian Green for comment. See news for Press Coverage. Click opposite for Lafarge Press release.  (PDF 433K)

Lafarge advertise public exhibition. ENRAGED ask.. does a half page advert in the Parishioner and a ‘Dear Occupier’ letter to a few selected residents and other stakeholders do enough to advertise a scheme of this nature?  (PDF 353K)

Ditchingham Parish Council respond to Norfolk County Council. ENRAGED comment.. this clearly puts in context the scheme, residents concerns, and the environmental impact. (PDF 1740K)

Norfolk County Council write to Ditchingham Parish Council. NCC request the Parish Council’s remarks in respect of Lafarge’s prospective application. ENRAGED comment.. DL Walker’s (Lafarge’s planning consultants) letter clearly sets out the impact of the scheme and illustrates that Lafarges plans are well advanced. (PDF 5954K)

Savills respond to Ditchingham Parish Council. ENRAGED ask. But why did Ditchingham Estate not consult the Parish Council earlier?  (PDF 423K)

Ditchingham Parish Council. Local residents raise the question does the Parish Council know what Ditchingham Estate’s intentions are regarding land off B1332 at Fen Lane? Why have hedge rows been grubbed up? Why has their been new planting along the B1332? The Parish Council write to Savills (that manage the Ditchingham Estate) and ask the question ‘what is the Estate’s intention regarding land off B1332 at Fen Lane? (PDF 178K)