Objection to AOS E - Land between Marham and Shouldham Warren Objection to AOS J - Land to the East of Tottenhill
May I start by saying, HOW VERY DARE YOU! When I first discovered these plans I thought it couldn't possibly be true!! And then to find that Norfolk County Council had deliberately misled the public that they are supposed to represent, to support, to act in the best interests of, by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality it is still included in AOS E. This overlap is evidently the ultimate aim of the Belgium company SIBELCO, otherwise why would it still be included?! No, we as a community are not that naive as to believe the smoke and mirrors that have been performed before us. The section of SIL 02 still within AOS E is still within the statutory 13kms limit of RAF Marham, therefore the previous objection by the MOD/D10 must be upheld.
According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. NCC will fail in its duty to provide health and wellbeing if these proposals are not stopped. Improving the Health and Wellbeing of this Country is of the highest importance and with 1 in 5 children leaving Primary school obese we need to encourage the use of natural open spaces, reducing the burden on Health Services. Attention has recently been drawn to poor mental health and high suicide rates which are a major cause for concern. Promoting open spaces of natural beauty for health and wellbeing is essential.
I strongly object to the destruction of such a well loved, greatly used ancient woodland. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. The Guardian reported on 3rd October 2019, "Populations of the UKs most important wildlife have plummeted by an average of 60% since 1970, according to the most comprehensive analysis to date". The surrounding countryside is an invaluable asset and provides habitats for birds, animals and insects. How could this even be considered as a proposed site? We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change! Trees absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen sounds like a magic solution, but that's just nature, we have no right to destroy it. It was recently reported that NCC needs to plant 64,000 trees in the next 10 years! Lets start by preserving the woodland we already have otherwise that figure will increase excessively!
Sibelco are not an authority but seem to believe they are able to instruct NCC how much Silica must be extracted. The reality should be efficient recycling of the existing glass in circulation, which is not being done. Only half is recycled, finding a place to put a hole to bury the other half is not acceptable! The preservation of mineral sources is essential and meeting the needs of the present without compromising future generations to meet their own needs. We cannot keep taking from the World, it does NOT owe us ANYTHING! It was here long before we were! We should be the guardians protecting it NOT destroying it!!

The impact of Brexit will clearly mean a greater need for home grown food. Losing large areas of agricultural land will have a negative affect on the increased demand and local farming jobs will be threatened. As these plans will not benefit the local community in any way and only present multiple risks, I see NO positives and many negatives. Another negative being the very worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water as the whole of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
These proposals will mean HGVs using an already heavily congested route that simply will NOT cope! Any restoration of the site will take in excess of 30 years, resulting in an increased flow of HGVs and a devastated landscape and countryside. Sibelco have a poor track record for restoration in the area and have failed to ensure the safety of sites after extraction, its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning.
It is the responsibility of County Councils to ensure the publics needs are being met and not disregarded in favour of harmful and irresponsible businesses making money which will not benefit the community or country.
Please record this as my objection.