Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92247
Received: 17/08/2018
Respondent: Ms Sonia Williams
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand but feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community.
I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco does not address the negative impact on the local residents, community and environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and the time scales involved.
I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own "Statement of Community Involvement". Residents were completely unaware of these plans as they were not notified of the consultation and have had only a few days to prepare a response.
In particular my objection is based on the following grounds:
Health/Safety and Environment
* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specially Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases. Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the "excessive burden" placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust presents significant risks to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M & WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.
Economic
* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
* No additional job creation
* Reduction in house values
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way
* Creation of "trapped" residents unable to move due to the inevitable effect on the housing market.
Local Infrastructure
* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.
Ecology
* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:-
Voles, newts, scarce emerald damselfly, moths including the grizzled skipper, dingy skipper
Birds - conservation priority red list: skylark, lapwing, house sparrow, linnet,
yellowhammer, song thrush, grey wagtail, tree pipit, nightjar, woodlark & grey partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.
Landscape
* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right
Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local
landscape.
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and the impact on health.
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100 m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for landfill in the future.
Archaeology
* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman and Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.
* Nothing in this proposal addresses residents concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or econological benefit.
In conclusion I would like to add that any one responsible for making decisions on this proposal should not just come to the area for a site visit or a formal meeting but should spend time in the villages, visit the schools, pubs and community to meet the people whose homes and lives are under threat.
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand but feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community.
I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco does not address the negative impact on the local residents, community and environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and the time scales involved.
I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own "Statement of Community Involvement". Residents were completely unaware of these plans as they were not notified of the consultation and have had only a few days to prepare a response.
In particular my objection is based on the following grounds:
Health/Safety and Environment
* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specially Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases. Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the "excessive burden" placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust presents significant risks to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M & WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.
Economic
* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
* No additional job creation
* Reduction in house values
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way
* Creation of "trapped" residents unable to move due to the inevitable effect on the housing market.
Local Infrastructure
* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.
Ecology
* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:-
Voles, newts, scarce emerald damselfly, moths including the grizzled skipper, dingy skipper
Birds - conservation priority red list: skylark, lapwing, house sparrow, linnet,
yellowhammer, song thrush, grey wagtail, tree pipit, nightjar, woodlark & grey partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.
Landscape
* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right
Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local
landscape.
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and the impact on health.
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100 m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for landfill in the future.
Archaeology
* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman and Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.
* Nothing in this proposal addresses residents concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or econological benefit.
In conclusion I would like to add that any one responsible for making decisions on this proposal should not just come to the area for a site visit or a formal meeting but should spend time in the villages, visit the schools, pubs and community to meet the people whose homes and lives are under threat.