Object

Representation ID: 98266

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Drew

I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed extraction of silica sand from the Mintlyn South site. I did try to lodge my complaint online however you only seem to allow 100 words in your objection box therefore rendering the process inadequate.

The main points of my objection are as follows:
*The first point I would like to object to is the Agricultural Land Classification being Non-Agricultural Use. A good percentage of this site is owned by [redacted text - personal data] who run their pedigree livestock farm from this area producing top quality Beef Shorthorn Cattle (including highly successful show cattle), Kerry Hill Sheep (again to successful show standards) and the rare breed Large Black Pig of which they have five bloodlines which is unique in the UK. The proposed extraction will not only decimate their land but kill their business with the majority of animals having to go to slaughter. This is the only area of land available to them for winter grazing therefore they will have no option other than to cease trading. No doubt you will side with the large mineral company regardless of impact to any other small companies that are 'in the way'. Does NCC not support British Farming?

*I would like to drawer your attention to the Government's Environment Bill as it does seem that the extraction of silica sand from this site goes completely against the principles of what Defra are looking to achieve with this bill which had its second reading in Westminster on Monday 28th October. I quote from the Defra website "The Bill will build on the UK's strong track record and sets out a comprehensive and world-leading vision to allow future generations to prosper. Environmental principles will be enshrined in law and measures will be introduced to improve air and water quality, tackle plastic pollution and restore habitats so plants and wildlife can thrive." Allowing Sibelco to take 1.2 million tonnes of sand from this site WILL NOT allow future generations to prosper, it WILL NOT improve air and water quality and it WILL NOT restore habitats so plants and wildlife can thrive! The trees within this proposed excavation site include 25 Oak, 2 Beech, Scotch Pine and Birch which, if Sibelco get permission to excavate, will be flattened and furthermore taking the wildlife with it.

*Between 2009 and 2017 Bob Osborne of the British Trust for Ornithology carried out a record of the bird life that he alone had seen in the area you refer to as SIL 01. The list is not exhaustive with birds like the Nightjar frequenting the trees in the summer. The very same trees destined for destruction. Surely a comprehensive study should be completed prior to any excavation being allowed to take place? His findings were as follows:
(SEE ATTACHED IMAGE)

*I understand that Bats in the UK are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and that ALL species are protected by the law. If this is the case then surely it would be an offence to destroy the habitat in which hundreds if not thousands of bats roost throughout the year. Allowing Sibelco to rip out the trees at the Mintlyn Park site WILL destroy such a habitat.

*While being within the confounds of this proposed extraction site I wonder what Sibelco would propose to do with all the frogs, toads, sand lizards, crested newts, common newts, adders and grass snakes that have made that area their home? In the days of Hepworth Minerals they employed the services of a wildlife expert who regularly visited to record the amount of wildlife in the park yet when Hepworth were eventually taken over by Sibelco, this expert was told he was no longer required. This is presumably because they did not want this information recorded in case it caused them problems in the future?

*Please also take into account the point of restoration as:
oThe previous extraction sites leased to Silbelco or the previous owners located to the North West have been left in an appalling state with NO RESTORATION!

o Please look at the areas of water left following the previous extractions. Many of these 'lakes' are not suitable for anything at all.
o What restoration is proposed and how will it be governed?
*Covenants should also be considered because:
o Covenants to restore the land etc following the extraction appear to have no or little value. Planning was granted to Leziate Sailing club land for the development of housing with the loss of community assets which were covered by covenants and/or a Section 52 order by the BCKLWN {18/00053/O}
o The Land Registry documents for this site have numerous covenants - Have these no value too?
* Does this area really need another large lake following this proposed excavation? It is my firm belief that, following recent deaths in other Bawsey lakes, this area has enough lakes and despite warnings, people will enter the water. If Norfolk County Council agree to allow this excavation there WILL be future problems with the resulting water and if any deaths occur in this water the County Councillors will have this on their conscience forevermore.
I would in summary ask you to seriously consider whether the threat to a small farming family business who produce some of the best pedigree livestock in the country, a vast array of birds, wildlife species and trees are really worth destroying in order to allow a large corporate business to extract 1,200,000 tonnes of sand just to increase their profits. With recent bad publicity and the loss of lives through drowning in the bawsey/leziate lakes I believe we do not need another lake left in the area as a result of sand excavation.