1. It seems that there is no mechanism for removing the site overlap which is technically a very dubious position to plan both an extraction location and a search location of the same area, how can it be both? I refer to AOS-E and SIL_02, of course which you have already been notified.
2. The revised assessment of the AOS_E site does studiously refused to consider essential elements of any proper evaluation (regardless of whether they are in your assessment procedure regulations or not) on the potential impact to life. I refer to the potential loss of a carbon capture sink (trees) during a period of exception need to combat climate change gases increasing beyond acceptable limits and also to the reduction of recreational space for much of West Norfolk. Shouldham Warren is much used by people from a much wider area postulated as only nearby villages, to the level at which many countryside recreational sites would just envy. Closing areas to people, demolishing trees and the consequential local disruption is along the level of closing the Norfolk Broads to boats, or turning Hyde Park, London into an open cast mine.
3. The justification for such a large area of disruption cannot really be determined by somewhat dubious projections of the need for silica sands, especially if recycling waste was treated much more seriously than is current practice in Norfolk and the rest of the country.
4. If you only work on financial figures the potential income from quarrying should be balanced against the compensation that would be necessary to those affected, if it were not for the derisory levels offered historically, this figure should be somewhat over a billion pounds at present day prices which would arguably make the scheme uneconomic.