Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92282
Received: 13/08/2018
Respondent: Mrs Svetlana Ignatieva
I wish to record my strong objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
This development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on our community, residents' health and wellbeing, and the environment. The massive size and the site and the timescales involved place an excessive and unacceptable burden on one village, which is already under strain from a growing airbase.
I would also like to put on record that the process was not compliant with the principals laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents of Marham were completely unaware of these plans, despite them being in development since 2015. There has been no communication from Norfolk County Council, the Borough Council, nor Marham Parish Council, which leads me to believe that information was deliberately withheld to benefit vested interests. The process has been entirely non-transparent and possibly corrupt. Marham Parish Council failed to inform their constituency or consult with residents prior to making 'objections' on their behalf, and their 'objections' fall very short of reflecting the extent of residents' concerns.
In particular, my objections are based on the following grounds:
Noise and light pollution - the village of Marham is already adversely affected by the additional noise and light pollution from the RAF Marham becoming the operational base for the new F-35 jets in addition to the existing Tornado Jets. The Anglian Water Treatment Works generates 24 hour noise and considerable light pollution. The noise from the mining operations, particularly during excavation phase, would severely affect the quiet enjoyment and welfare of Marham residents. Specifically, my family residence at Chapel House is located less than 400m from the proposed site, on the western boundary and would be subject to unacceptable levels of noise due to prevailing westerly winds.
Dust - the planning document states that "adverse impacts of dust from sand extraction are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generating activities". If this assertion were true, it is not clear why sand dust from the Sahara regularly travels thousands of miles to the UK? If dust were not an issue, why would 'dust deposition' impact need to be further assessed on the River Nar SSSI and adjacent County Wildlife Sites? The plan deliberately understates the issue of dust and uses an arbitrary distance of 250m for unsubstantiated assertions that beyond this distance dust impacts are 'uncommon'. I believe dust would be a serious issue for Chapel House due to the proximity and the prevailing westerly winds. I am very concerned about health implications of silica dust on my family and elderly family members.
Landscape impacts and views - the mine would have unacceptable landscape impacts, particularly in relation to views from Marham and Squires Hill and from Nar Valley Way public footpath, including views from Pentney Abbey - a Scheduled Monument. The proposed development would be visually detrimental from these viewpoints. Marham is in an elevated position relative to the proposed site - bunds or screening will be intrusive in their own right. The site would be directly visible from the second floor of Chapel House which currently enjoys unobstructed views all the way to River Nar.
Nar Valley Way is one of the main walking arteries that brings tourists to the area, advertised by the Norfolk Council as "An enjoyable walk along the south bank of the River Nar, with beautiful landscape views, and historic interest along the way". There are a number of Public Right of Ways within or adjacent to the site, which would be either lost entirely or degraded. Village residents, including me, use the public footpath to the river and Nar Valley Way on a daily basis.
The Parish Council response mentions that "the quarry sites will be used as landfill, which is a concern due to the inappropriate current regulations of the Landfill Directive." No further explanation or assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future and is a major concern.
Environmental and biodiversity impacts - the plans state that the SSSI within the Impact Zone will not be affected 'as long as no dewatering is proposed' - it is not clear how no dewatering will occur if the plan is to pipe millions of tons of sand mixed in water out of the area? For mineral extractions to be acceptable within a Core River Valley proposals need to demonstrate that they will result in landscape enhancement on restoration. The fact that the mining company hasn't made any suggestions on restoration or how biodiversity will be protected, leads me to believe there is no intention to remedy the harm caused. These fears are exacerbated by the appalling state of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate. An owl box in the roof of Chapel House is inhabited by a family of protected Barn Owls, and the proposed site will deprive them of hunting grounds. I strongly object to the development on the grounds of harm to the environment and biodiversity habitat loss.
Unsuitable roads - while the proposal is to use a pipeline to transport sand form the site, the construction phase will require the movement of HGV on the narrow rural
and village lanes that are entirely unsuitable for heavy machinery. Chapel House is located on the double bend of The Street, less than a 2 meters from the road, and would be affected by the noise and pollution from any heavy machinery or additional traffic.
Economic impacts - while the Sibelco and the landowner stand to make substantial profits from this enterprise, there is no economic upside for Mahram residents. There will be no job creation or enhancement to infrastructure. The mine will result in adverse impact on house prices in the area - the residents will require compensation commensurate with the devaluation of house prices, increase in insurance costs, and loss of ecosystem services.
Flood risk - the majority of the area is within a high risk Flood Zone. While Sibelco asserts that their operations are 'Water compatible', the Environment Agency stated that development should be subject to a Flood Risk Assessment being carried out which demonstrates that the proposal does not result in a unacceptable flood risk to the site itself and without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Many of the houses in Marham, including Chapel House, are located below sea level, and are subject to flood risk.
Heritage - the proximity of the site to a number of heritage assets will have an unacceptable impact on the character of the historic environment. While Chapel House is not a Scheduled Monument, it is a prominent feature building constructed in 1836 and has an important place in the history of the village.
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses my concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. The past few days since this came to light have caused unacceptable levels of stress and anxiety to me, my family and my neighbours. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit. The consultation process has been entirely non-transparent and only served the interests of parties who are due to benefit. Trust and confidence in due process and safeguarding of residents' interests have been seriously breached and will require remedy.
I wish to record my strong objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
This development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on our community, residents' health and wellbeing, and the environment. The massive size and the site and the timescales involved place an excessive and unacceptable burden on one village, which is already under strain from a growing airbase.
I would also like to put on record that the process was not compliant with the principals laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents of Marham were completely unaware of these plans, despite them being in development since 2015. There has been no communication from Norfolk County Council, the Borough Council, nor Marham Parish Council, which leads me to believe that information was deliberately withheld to benefit vested interests. The process has been entirely non-transparent and possibly corrupt. Marham Parish Council failed to inform their constituency or consult with residents prior to making 'objections' on their behalf, and their 'objections' fall very short of reflecting the extent of residents' concerns.
In particular, my objections are based on the following grounds:
Noise and light pollution - the village of Marham is already adversely affected by the additional noise and light pollution from the RAF Marham becoming the operational base for the new F-35 jets in addition to the existing Tornado Jets. The Anglian Water Treatment Works generates 24 hour noise and considerable light pollution. The noise from the mining operations, particularly during excavation phase, would severely affect the quiet enjoyment and welfare of Marham residents. Specifically, my family residence at Chapel House is located less than 400m from the proposed site, on the western boundary and would be subject to unacceptable levels of noise due to prevailing westerly winds.
Dust - the planning document states that "adverse impacts of dust from sand extraction are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generating activities". If this assertion were true, it is not clear why sand dust from the Sahara regularly travels thousands of miles to the UK? If dust were not an issue, why would 'dust deposition' impact need to be further assessed on the River Nar SSSI and adjacent County Wildlife Sites? The plan deliberately understates the issue of dust and uses an arbitrary distance of 250m for unsubstantiated assertions that beyond this distance dust impacts are 'uncommon'. I believe dust would be a serious issue for Chapel House due to the proximity and the prevailing westerly winds. I am very concerned about health implications of silica dust on my family and elderly family members.
Landscape impacts and views - the mine would have unacceptable landscape impacts, particularly in relation to views from Marham and Squires Hill and from Nar Valley Way public footpath, including views from Pentney Abbey - a Scheduled Monument. The proposed development would be visually detrimental from these viewpoints. Marham is in an elevated position relative to the proposed site - bunds or screening will be intrusive in their own right. The site would be directly visible from the second floor of Chapel House which currently enjoys unobstructed views all the way to River Nar.
Nar Valley Way is one of the main walking arteries that brings tourists to the area, advertised by the Norfolk Council as "An enjoyable walk along the south bank of the River Nar, with beautiful landscape views, and historic interest along the way". There are a number of Public Right of Ways within or adjacent to the site, which would be either lost entirely or degraded. Village residents, including me, use the public footpath to the river and Nar Valley Way on a daily basis.
The Parish Council response mentions that "the quarry sites will be used as landfill, which is a concern due to the inappropriate current regulations of the Landfill Directive." No further explanation or assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future and is a major concern.
Environmental and biodiversity impacts - the plans state that the SSSI within the Impact Zone will not be affected 'as long as no dewatering is proposed' - it is not clear how no dewatering will occur if the plan is to pipe millions of tons of sand mixed in water out of the area? For mineral extractions to be acceptable within a Core River Valley proposals need to demonstrate that they will result in landscape enhancement on restoration. The fact that the mining company hasn't made any suggestions on restoration or how biodiversity will be protected, leads me to believe there is no intention to remedy the harm caused. These fears are exacerbated by the appalling state of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate. An owl box in the roof of Chapel House is inhabited by a family of protected Barn Owls, and the proposed site will deprive them of hunting grounds. I strongly object to the development on the grounds of harm to the environment and biodiversity habitat loss.
Unsuitable roads - while the proposal is to use a pipeline to transport sand form the site, the construction phase will require the movement of HGV on the narrow rural
and village lanes that are entirely unsuitable for heavy machinery. Chapel House is located on the double bend of The Street, less than a 2 meters from the road, and would be affected by the noise and pollution from any heavy machinery or additional traffic.
Economic impacts - while the Sibelco and the landowner stand to make substantial profits from this enterprise, there is no economic upside for Mahram residents. There will be no job creation or enhancement to infrastructure. The mine will result in adverse impact on house prices in the area - the residents will require compensation commensurate with the devaluation of house prices, increase in insurance costs, and loss of ecosystem services.
Flood risk - the majority of the area is within a high risk Flood Zone. While Sibelco asserts that their operations are 'Water compatible', the Environment Agency stated that development should be subject to a Flood Risk Assessment being carried out which demonstrates that the proposal does not result in a unacceptable flood risk to the site itself and without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Many of the houses in Marham, including Chapel House, are located below sea level, and are subject to flood risk.
Heritage - the proximity of the site to a number of heritage assets will have an unacceptable impact on the character of the historic environment. While Chapel House is not a Scheduled Monument, it is a prominent feature building constructed in 1836 and has an important place in the history of the village.
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses my concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. The past few days since this came to light have caused unacceptable levels of stress and anxiety to me, my family and my neighbours. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit. The consultation process has been entirely non-transparent and only served the interests of parties who are due to benefit. Trust and confidence in due process and safeguarding of residents' interests have been seriously breached and will require remedy.