Object

Representation ID: 94711

Received: 27/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs LDT Gallagher

I object to the whole of Norfolk M&WLP and especially the large area of SIL02 that has been included in AOS E after it was said not to be allocated. NPPF states in para 35, four criteria by which a sound plan is based; Positively Prepared, Justified, Effective,and Consistent with National Policy. This plan is unsound based on these four criteria especially relating to SIL02 overlap in AOSE.

Positively Prepared - Norfolk County Council has not looked into the positives of glass recycling at all, never mind looking into recycling flat glass (which is done to great effect in Germany). Recycling glass, especially flat glass would preserve minerals for future generations; see Ch.17 para 204.b NPPF. The other benefit of glass recycling would be to show that Norfolk, especially West Norfolk is not up for sale to greedy business; we have ineffectual governance of our County if this plan is enacted. It is Norfolk being stripped of a finite resource at the say so of Sibelco (sales figures are Sibelco's own figures and have no breakdown of how they are derived) for Sibelco company profit, with little or no financial benefit to us, the residents. County Council is not looking after the Norfolk taxpayers interests; the real investors in Norfolk. Quarrying is not environmentally friendly; to offset any CO2 emissions HGV transport needs to be avoided if we want to be carbon neutral in the timescale the Govt. has mandated.

Justified - How can you put forward huge areas for reduction to smaller areas knowing that in the future Sibelco will ask for extension after extension to 'land grab' that original large area? Even in their own literature NCC admit they give more weight to an area that has already been developed, which for the area of SIL02 is 390 hectares and AOSE nearly 1000 hectares. How can you justify quarrying in light of Climate Change Act and reductions to be made to be carbon neutral? How can it be justified that large areas of good agricultural land and forest is to be decimated for sand, over food and health of our communities? How can it be justified to blight the landscape with a quarry that sits directly in the historic environment of Pentney Priory Gatehouse? How can it be justified whilst we import many other goods- medicines, foodstuffs and others - but we fail to import silica sand, which would preserve our own reserves of this finite material and also preserve the heritage, health, and wealth of the nation for future generations?

Effective - This plan is not compliant with DEFRA's 25 Year Plan, with BEIS Clean Growth Strategy, or NPPG Refs : 27-012,013,017 and 045-20140306 , or NPPF guidance to look to recycle before extraction of raw materials. How can you say this plan is effective when you have no vision to change the past destructive practices of quarrying and continue with the status quo? Only a forward thinking plan that includes recycling glass, especially flat glass would make the plan effective. NCC has a duty of care to the taxpayers of Norfolk to ensure that our homes and lives are not affected to our detriment. How is this plan effective if NCC is not abiding by the Climate Change Act; DEFRAs 25 Year Plan, BEIS Green Energy Plan, the need to be more self-sufficient in growing food-stuffs for the nation and the practise of ignoring NPPF on the need to reserve finite resources effectively?

Consistent with National Policy - This plan is NOT compliant with DEFRAs 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment, the Gov plan for Rural Proofing, the NPPW, BEIS Clean Growth Strategy, NPPG Refs : 27-012,013,017 and 045-20140306, or NPPF looking to recycle before extraction of raw materials; therefore, this plan is not consistent with National Policy and is unsound.