Object
Preferred Options consultation document
Representation ID: 93237
Received: 09/10/2019
Respondent: Mr Robert Thompson
I write to register my objection to site AOS E identified as part of Norfolk County Council's (NCC) Waste and Mineral Plan for proposed Silica Sand extraction.
I note the area under consideration is inclusive of a portion of SIL 02, the latter being an area that I understood had been eliminated from further consideration principally due to concerns raised by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in relation to the high risk impact on operational air activity from RAF Marham.
I am a resident in Shouldham village which is one of the nearest communities which will be directly impacted by this proposal.
This Area of Search for possible deposits of Silica Sand includes Shouldham Warren within its boundary. This is not an area of waste ground awaiting development. Shouldham Warren is a essential public amenity providing free open access for all - including those with disabilities - to a safe, clean and peaceful environment, including access to the Nene Valley Way. The area is used annually by thousands of people from local communities and much further. Shouldham Warren is host to regular organised sporting events involving cyclists and runners. It is used on a daily basis by walkers, people exercising dogs and horse riders. It provides a natural haven for a diversity of wildlife. It is a Government strategy to encourage more of the population to taken varied exercise in the open. Shouldham Warren is a significant asset for West Norfolk that facilitates that strategy.
The greater part of Shouldham Warren is presently managed by the Forestry Commission as a renewable and sustainable source of timber for various applications. As such Shouldham Warren is a part of the national repository of a "green" resource. The destruction of the Warren will result in the loss of this resource. Presumably this will necessitate a substantial compensation payment to the Forestry Commission.
I understand that Sibleco is the company that NCC intend to commission for the silica sand extraction. This company has an appalling attitude (ie non existent) to the restoration and recovery of sites previously worked. A rural haven can expected to be transformed into a colossal eyesore. This would constitute a major loss to the West Norfolk area and further beyond. It would seriously mitigate against the quality of life for those who benefit physically and mentally from its existence.
The anticipated means of transport for the removal of the silica sand extracted is by lorries using both the A134 and A10 in addition to other routes. This would involve a high number of daily HGV journeys to and from the operational site. Both roads already experience a high number of HGV journeys. The A10 in particular is heavily congested with motorway volumes of traffic struggling up towards the Hardwick roundabout for destinations in Lincolnshire and beyond. The addition of numerous Sibelco related journeys will place particular strain on a road infrastructure that is struggling to cope with present demand. This is liable to necessitate high expenditure to adapt existing routes to attempt to facilitate flow and avoid accidents. Overall journey times will increase and emergency traffic will be hindered.
There will undoubtedly be a significant increase in vehicle emissions. I believe it would be reasonable to surmise, in light of the precedent already established elsewhere, for Norfolk County Council to be liable to instances of public prosecution through the legal system, for knowingly engaging in a policy that will have a severe impact on the air quality directly leading to a negative impact on the health of many local residents. My argument is not confined to a deterioration of air quality arising from vehicular emissions, but also fine silica deposits that would arise from a process of dry extraction which may be the preferred method to mitigate against the concerns of the MOD.
A further reasonable assumption would be the "collateral damage" caused to the economic health of King's Lynn which would cease to be a viable destination for many thousands of potential visitors for the period of work. I believe local businesses looking to recruit new workers to the local economy will also be negatively impacted by the undue strain placed on access routes translating into nightmare commuting journeys. The loss of a significant recreational resource would be a deterrent to newcomers to the area and a blight on those already present.
Shouldham Warren needs preservation as an existing resource to promote health and well being for all, which I would assume integrates with the health strategy of Norfolk County Council for all its communities.
I urge that AOS E inclusive of a portion of SIL 02 is permanently withdrawn as a preferred option for further consideration.
I write to register my objection to site AOS E identified as part of Norfolk County Council's (NCC) Waste and Mineral Plan for proposed Silica Sand extraction.
I note the area under consideration is inclusive of a portion of SIL 02, the latter being an area that I understood had been eliminated from further consideration principally due to concerns raised by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in relation to the high risk impact on operational air activity from RAF Marham.
I am a resident in Shouldham village which is one of the nearest communities which will be directly impacted by this proposal.
This Area of Search for possible deposits of Silica Sand includes Shouldham Warren within its boundary. This is not an area of waste ground awaiting development. Shouldham Warren is a essential public amenity providing free open access for all - including those with disabilities - to a safe, clean and peaceful environment, including access to the Nene Valley Way. The area is used annually by thousands of people from local communities and much further. Shouldham Warren is host to regular organised sporting events involving cyclists and runners. It is used on a daily basis by walkers, people exercising dogs and horse riders. It provides a natural haven for a diversity of wildlife. It is a Government strategy to encourage more of the population to taken varied exercise in the open. Shouldham Warren is a significant asset for West Norfolk that facilitates that strategy.
The greater part of Shouldham Warren is presently managed by the Forestry Commission as a renewable and sustainable source of timber for various applications. As such Shouldham Warren is a part of the national repository of a "green" resource. The destruction of the Warren will result in the loss of this resource. Presumably this will necessitate a substantial compensation payment to the Forestry Commission.
I understand that Sibleco is the company that NCC intend to commission for the silica sand extraction. This company has an appalling attitude (ie non existent) to the restoration and recovery of sites previously worked. A rural haven can expected to be transformed into a colossal eyesore. This would constitute a major loss to the West Norfolk area and further beyond. It would seriously mitigate against the quality of life for those who benefit physically and mentally from its existence.
The anticipated means of transport for the removal of the silica sand extracted is by lorries using both the A134 and A10 in addition to other routes. This would involve a high number of daily HGV journeys to and from the operational site. Both roads already experience a high number of HGV journeys. The A10 in particular is heavily congested with motorway volumes of traffic struggling up towards the Hardwick roundabout for destinations in Lincolnshire and beyond. The addition of numerous Sibelco related journeys will place particular strain on a road infrastructure that is struggling to cope with present demand. This is liable to necessitate high expenditure to adapt existing routes to attempt to facilitate flow and avoid accidents. Overall journey times will increase and emergency traffic will be hindered.
There will undoubtedly be a significant increase in vehicle emissions. I believe it would be reasonable to surmise, in light of the precedent already established elsewhere, for Norfolk County Council to be liable to instances of public prosecution through the legal system, for knowingly engaging in a policy that will have a severe impact on the air quality directly leading to a negative impact on the health of many local residents. My argument is not confined to a deterioration of air quality arising from vehicular emissions, but also fine silica deposits that would arise from a process of dry extraction which may be the preferred method to mitigate against the concerns of the MOD.
A further reasonable assumption would be the "collateral damage" caused to the economic health of King's Lynn which would cease to be a viable destination for many thousands of potential visitors for the period of work. I believe local businesses looking to recruit new workers to the local economy will also be negatively impacted by the undue strain placed on access routes translating into nightmare commuting journeys. The loss of a significant recreational resource would be a deterrent to newcomers to the area and a blight on those already present.
Shouldham Warren needs preservation as an existing resource to promote health and well being for all, which I would assume integrates with the health strategy of Norfolk County Council for all its communities.
I urge that AOS E inclusive of a portion of SIL 02 is permanently withdrawn as a preferred option for further consideration.