Foot and mouth fears among 240+ objections to 170-home plan for Mulbarton
PUBLISHED: 06:31 07 July 2018
A residents’ group say they have “grave concerns” over plans for up to 170 new homes in their village - over fears the site has previously been used for burying infected cows.
Glavenhill Strategic Land has submitted an outline application for a site east of Norwich Road in Mulbarton, which would also see a new doctors’ surgery, pharmacy and village green areas.
However, the application, which is up for decision later in the year has received more than 245 objections from the public.
Among these, the Mulbarton Residents’ Group has raised fears that the land touted for development had in the past been used as a foot and mouth burial site.
In a letter to the project’s case officer, the group said: “We have been made aware by local residents that the proposed land for this planning application has historically been used as a site for burying the carcasses of cattle infected with foot and mouth disease.
“This is causing grave concern to the potential effect of this, should the field ever be built on.”
The concerns have prompted South Norfolk Council to investigate whether this is in fact the case.
A spokesman said: “We have thus far found no evidence of any foot and mouth burials on the side, however, since these concerns have been raised we are checking with the department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra).”
Should evidence be discovered, it would provide a significant road block for the planners, who would require a licence to allow the carcasses to be safely excavated and disposed of.
However, Lanpro, the agent for the development, say they have no concerns over the issues.
Chris Leeming, Lanpro managing director, said: “We have had confirmation from the animal and health agency that there is no record of foot and mouth burials on the site and the land owner - who has been on the site since the 1950s has told us the same.
“We have no concerns about this whatsoever - it’s absolute nonsense.”
Among the other objections to the plans, the Campaign for Protection of Rural England raised concerns that the land is not included in the current local plan for the village.