Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 93587

Received: 02/10/2019

Respondent: Mr JJ Gallagher

Representation Summary:

Summary: MOD (DIO) objected to the whole of SIL 02 as an area for quarrying silica sand. Despite agreeing with this objection, NCC has decided not to remove all of SIL 02 from the plan but to allow a third of it to remain where it overlaps with AOS E. I pointed this out to the Infra and Dev Committee and the Cabinet before both sat and approved the Preferred Options Plan for public consultation. Is NCC consciously misleading the public over this? I agree with the MOD objection and object to ANY of SIL 02 remaining in the plan.

I objected to SIL 02 in the Initial Consultation phase and was pleased to read that SIL 02 was not allocated in this Preferred Options stage. That was until it became apparent that, despite the MOD (DIO) objection to the increased birdstrike risk that SIL 02 would cause and agreed by NCC, only part of SIL 02 was to be removed from the allocation with a substantial area remaining (approximately a third of the original area of SIL 02) under the name of AOS E. I wrote to the Chair of the Infrastructure and Development Committee and to Cllr Andy Grant prior to the meeting of that committee in July to point out this obvious anomaly for consideration before they agreed to send the Preferred Options M&WLP draft to Cabinet for ratification and publication in a consultation phase. When this point was ignored I wrote to the Chair of the Cabinet and Cllr Grant to make them aware before the Cabinet meeting of August where the M&WLP was to be an agenda item for ratification and agreement to go ahead with the Preferred Options Consultation. Again it fell on deaf ears and the whole of SIL 02 was not removed from the plan. Nowhere in the Preferred Options documents does it allude to any overlap of area between AOS E and SIL 02; it certainly does not point the reader to the fact that there is any overlap of the areas and that SIL 02, in part, remains in the plan. NCC state in the summary of SIL 02, "S2.28 Conclusion: The site is considered to be unsuitable for allocation because:

Due to the size of the extraction site proposed within 5km of RAF Marham and the likelihood of the site being restored to open water, there is a high risk of unacceptable adverse impacts on aviation safety and the Ministry of Defence (Defence Infrastructure Organisation) has objected to the proposal." The MOD (DIO) objection is very clear - they object to the whole of SIL 02, not part of it. Therefore, if NCC is to leave this overlap area of AOS E and SIL 02 in the M&WLP, despite the very strong objection from MOD (DIO) and NCC's agreement with that objection, are NCC consciously misleading the public?

I object to the plan continuing to include the overlap area of SIL 02 and AOS E despite the MOD (DIO) objection to the whole of SIL 02 as an area for silica sand quarrying.

Full text:

I objected to SIL 02 in the Initial Consultation phase and was pleased to read that SIL 02 was not allocated in this Preferred Options stage. That was until it became apparent that, despite the MOD (DIO) objection to the increased birdstrike risk that SIL 02 would cause and agreed by NCC, only part of SIL 02 was to be removed from the allocation with a substantial area remaining (approximately a third of the original area of SIL 02) under the name of AOS E. I wrote to the Chair of the Infrastructure and Development Committee and to Cllr Andy Grant prior to the meeting of that committee in July to point out this obvious anomaly for consideration before they agreed to send the Preferred Options M&WLP draft to Cabinet for ratification and publication in a consultation phase. When this point was ignored I wrote to the Chair of the Cabinet and Cllr Grant to make them aware before the Cabinet meeting of August where the M&WLP was to be an agenda item for ratification and agreement to go ahead with the Preferred Options Consultation. Again it fell on deaf ears and the whole of SIL 02 was not removed from the plan. Nowhere in the Preferred Options documents does it allude to any overlap of area between AOS E and SIL 02; it certainly does not point the reader to the fact that there is any overlap of the areas and that SIL 02, in part, remains in the plan. NCC state in the summary of SIL 02, "S2.28 Conclusion: The site is considered to be unsuitable for allocation because:

Due to the size of the extraction site proposed within 5km of RAF Marham and the likelihood of the site being restored to open water, there is a high risk of unacceptable adverse impacts on aviation safety and the Ministry of Defence (Defence Infrastructure Organisation) has objected to the proposal." The MOD (DIO) objection is very clear - they object to the whole of SIL 02, not part of it. Therefore, if NCC is to leave this overlap area of AOS E and SIL 02 in the M&WLP, despite the very strong objection from MOD (DIO) and NCC's agreement with that objection, are NCC consciously misleading the public?

I object to the plan continuing to include the overlap area of SIL 02 and AOS E despite the MOD (DIO) objection to the whole of SIL 02 as an area for silica sand quarrying.