Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92135
Received: 13/08/2018
Respondent: Ms Liz Brewer
My formal objection to the planned Sibelco silica sand extraction at the site behind Spring Lane and the Mere Plot near Shouldham and Marham. This is in reference to the letter sent to residences dated 26 June 2018, and the information subsequently made available to.
I would like to object to these plans made known for the following reasons:
1. No restoration plan has been proposed. This is possibly the most important issue, as many companies have simply abandoned workings leaving dangerous sites full of deep water and abandoned equipment, such as that which has happened at Bawsey. Another example of this happened at Pentney: the inappropriate development of what is effectively a new village around the workings disguised as "holiday cabins" because a normal development would not have been permitted. This type of working can so easily be used as a gateway to other semi-industrial or residential uses in a sensitive landscape. A detailed and ultimately enforceable restoration plan should be consulted upon and in place before any other permissions are granted, as this will be the ultimate legacy of this development.
2. It could be restored to a wetland habitat or grazing marsh, which is historically what most of the river valley was before the river was canalized for navigation, and the surrounding land drained for agriculture. There is now less than one percent of this habitat left in England! The RAF concern about bird strike over wetlands is surely spurious, as they are surrounded by disused gravel workings and choose to fly and train over The Wash (which has some of the highest concentrations of wetland birds in Europe). Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Norfolk Rivers Trust and Natural England would, surely, be more than happy to be involved in the development of a plan which could benefit the local environment and public enjoyment of the area.
3. Sibelco have not proposed any restriction on working hours, which suggests the possibility that work could continue at the site for 24 hours a day. For obvious reasons, this poses a significant worry regarding possible noise and light pollution.
4. Screening of the quarry is likely to be ineffective for the residents of Marham, due to its elevation above the site. There is no bunding that could be large enough to prevent light and noise pollution to the residents who already endure large amounts of this from the RAF base.
5. Screening by bunding or poor-quality conifer belts is inappropriate in a river valley setting, especially with the historically sensitive connection between Pentney Abbey and Marham Priory. Any obstruction of view across the fen valley would disrupt a scene which has been familiar for nearly a thousand years.
6. The rural road network is inappropriate for an increase in traffic which would inevitably occur- even if the sand was pumped out -as plant, equipment and men cannot be pumped in. There is no way into the site that does not pass through a village with narrow, poorly maintained roads.
7. The site's proximity to the River Nar, which is an important chalk stream habitat of national importance and a public right of way, means it would impact upon the public amenity of the area which has already been heavily quarried on the north side of the river. This is true especially if a pipeline or haul road were to be constructed. The site also contains species of national importance - such as water voles - although a sympathetic restoration of the site could improve the habitat from its current intensive agricultural use.
8. Archaeologically the area is very rich in finds from prehistoric to Roman to medieval, and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed by the workings. This, however, should be covered by the Norfolk archaeology unit prior to commencement of working. Please take the above points as formal reasons for objection to this plan. Until these points have been addressed and resolved, my objection will remain.
My formal objection to the planned Sibelco silica sand extraction at the site behind Spring Lane and the Mere Plot near Shouldham and Marham. This is in reference to the letter sent to residences dated 26 June 2018, and the information subsequently made available to.
I would like to object to these plans made known for the following reasons:
1. No restoration plan has been proposed. This is possibly the most important issue, as many companies have simply abandoned workings leaving dangerous sites full of deep water and abandoned equipment, such as that which has happened at Bawsey. Another example of this happened at Pentney: the inappropriate development of what is effectively a new village around the workings disguised as "holiday cabins" because a normal development would not have been permitted. This type of working can so easily be used as a gateway to other semi-industrial or residential uses in a sensitive landscape. A detailed and ultimately enforceable restoration plan should be consulted upon and in place before any other permissions are granted, as this will be the ultimate legacy of this development.
2. It could be restored to a wetland habitat or grazing marsh, which is historically what most of the river valley was before the river was canalized for navigation, and the surrounding land drained for agriculture. There is now less than one percent of this habitat left in England! The RAF concern about bird strike over wetlands is surely spurious, as they are surrounded by disused gravel workings and choose to fly and train over The Wash (which has some of the highest concentrations of wetland birds in Europe). Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Norfolk Rivers Trust and Natural England would, surely, be more than happy to be involved in the development of a plan which could benefit the local environment and public enjoyment of the area.
3. Sibelco have not proposed any restriction on working hours, which suggests the possibility that work could continue at the site for 24 hours a day. For obvious reasons, this poses a significant worry regarding possible noise and light pollution.
4. Screening of the quarry is likely to be ineffective for the residents of Marham, due to its elevation above the site. There is no bunding that could be large enough to prevent light and noise pollution to the residents who already endure large amounts of this from the RAF base.
5. Screening by bunding or poor-quality conifer belts is inappropriate in a river valley setting, especially with the historically sensitive connection between Pentney Abbey and Marham Priory. Any obstruction of view across the fen valley would disrupt a scene which has been familiar for nearly a thousand years.
6. The rural road network is inappropriate for an increase in traffic which would inevitably occur- even if the sand was pumped out -as plant, equipment and men cannot be pumped in. There is no way into the site that does not pass through a village with narrow, poorly maintained roads.
7. The site's proximity to the River Nar, which is an important chalk stream habitat of national importance and a public right of way, means it would impact upon the public amenity of the area which has already been heavily quarried on the north side of the river. This is true especially if a pipeline or haul road were to be constructed. The site also contains species of national importance - such as water voles - although a sympathetic restoration of the site could improve the habitat from its current intensive agricultural use.
8. Archaeologically the area is very rich in finds from prehistoric to Roman to medieval, and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed by the workings. This, however, should be covered by the Norfolk archaeology unit prior to commencement of working. Please take the above points as formal reasons for objection to this plan. Until these points have been addressed and resolved, my objection will remain.