Object
Preferred Options consultation document
Representation ID: 94913
Received: 29/10/2019
Respondent: Mr JJ Gallagher
Mineral Strategic Objectives - In order for MSO 2 to be sound it must quantify what is an 'adequate' supply. Currently in the case of silica sand the figures that NCC use to quantify adequate are based on the 'need' that Sibelco, the monopoly company extracting silica sand in Norfolk, tell NCC is the need. There is no independent verification by NCC of these figures; they do not know where the extracted silica sand goes to once it leaves Norfolk; they do not know if any glass making sand from Leziate is exported; they do not have an independent verification of the actual quantities extracted each year. An extremely loose set of affairs that makes the plan for silica sand extraction in Norfolk unsound.
MSO 6 could be fulfilled by planning and instigating a world class glass recycling infrastructure in Norfolk. It would reduce the need to quarry huge areas of countryside. MSO7 could also be fulfilled by the plan for recycling glass above because the areas required would be reduced meaning less people living within proximity of a silica sand quarry.
NCC are poorly placed to argue that MSO 8 is being fulfilled without planning to introduce a world class recycling infrastructure in Norfolk. Without this they are not fulfilling their obligation to The Climate Change Act or supporting the UK's legal obligations to reduce the production of greenhouse gases. Recycling as suggested here reduces the amount of raw material required in glass manufacture, which reduces the CO2 produced in the process and uses less energy. Without more efficient clear and flat glass recycling at greater rates than present NCC fail MSO 8.
In respect of MSO 9 it is illogical and unsound to try and defend destroying already richly diverse habitats for generations to come in order to quarry for minerals, by stating that your objective is, "The after use will protect and enhance the environment, including landscape and biodiversity improvements". The areas in question are already biodiverse, if they need improving then do that now not pretend that quarries will be returned to an idyllic wonderland. That statement in MSO 9 is at best wishful thinking and history proves it is unenforceable. Without doubt MSO 9 is unsound.
Similarly, MSO10 is unsound and illogical if the plan is to give over to quarrying areas of countryside that are already accessible to the public. Such areas exist within the M&WLP and whilst they remain the plan is unsound.
Mineral Strategic Objectives - In order for MSO 2 to be sound it must quantify what is an 'adequate' supply. Currently in the case of silica sand the figures that NCC use to quantify adequate are based on the 'need' that Sibelco, the monopoly company extracting silica sand in Norfolk, tell NCC is the need. There is no independent verification by NCC of these figures; they do not know where the extracted silica sand goes to once it leaves Norfolk; they do not know if any glass making sand from Leziate is exported; they do not have an independent verification of the actual quantities extracted each year. An extremely loose set of affairs that makes the plan for silica sand extraction in Norfolk unsound.
MSO 6 could be fulfilled by planning and instigating a world class glass recycling infrastructure in Norfolk. It would reduce the need to quarry huge areas of countryside. MSO7 could also be fulfilled by the plan for recycling glass above because the areas required would be reduced meaning less people living within proximity of a silica sand quarry.
NCC are poorly placed to argue that MSO 8 is being fulfilled without planning to introduce a world class recycling infrastructure in Norfolk. Without this they are not fulfilling their obligation to The Climate Change Act or supporting the UK's legal obligations to reduce the production of greenhouse gases. Recycling as suggested here reduces the amount of raw material required in glass manufacture, which reduces the CO2 produced in the process and uses less energy. Without more efficient clear and flat glass recycling at greater rates than present NCC fail MSO 8.
In respect of MSO 9 it is illogical and unsound to try and defend destroying already richly diverse habitats for generations to come in order to quarry for minerals, by stating that your objective is, "The after use will protect and enhance the environment, including landscape and biodiversity improvements". The areas in question are already biodiverse, if they need improving then do that now not pretend that quarries will be returned to an idyllic wonderland. That statement in MSO 9 is at best wishful thinking and history proves it is unenforceable. Without doubt MSO 9 is unsound.
Similarly, MSO10 is unsound and illogical if the plan is to give over to quarrying areas of countryside that are already accessible to the public. Such areas exist within the M&WLP and whilst they remain the plan is unsound.