Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98582

Received: 09/10/2019

Respondent: Keith Wood

Representation Summary:

in addition to the above comments I also object to the proposals as a very local resident who will be affected both directly and indirectly by increases in traffic and noise pollution. currently Tottenhill has sand extraction works to the west which under these proposals would extend to the south and east in effect surrounding a community with potential increases in noise and traffic on all sides. the infrastructure for transporting the proposed extraction is not currently adequate for the traffic levels as is let alone raising this even further. the current area is habitation for deer, nesting birds including nesting buzzard, kit, lesser spotted and greater spotted woodpecker, coal tits, great tits, long tail tit, to name just a few. along with Great crested newts, adders and other vertebrates within this area.
the use that the sand will be put to inevitably destroys a habitat by its very nature but the extraction destroys this one also. the construction industry are actively seeking other ways of building to reduce the carbon footprint that concrete production produces. lets nto add to it by transporting and destroying this local environment.

Full text:

Objection to NCC
To: Caroline Jeffery, Principal Planner (Minerals and Waste Policy) Norfolk County Council Objection to Quarrying in AOS E at Shouldham and Marham, Norfolk I object to silica sand mining taking place in the area of Area Of Search (AOS) E and its surroundings as proposed in the Norfolk County Council Mineral & Waste Local Plan, Preferred Options July 2019. It is used for outdoor exercise by 1000s of people; young and old. The loss of long-established woodlands would be devastating for mental health and physical well-being. It would be a disaster for the biodiversity of flora and fauna supported by that ecosystem. The destruction of woodland, never to be restored, is unacceptable at a time when Govt's policy (Clean Growth Strategy) is to increase the number of trees in the UK - "Establish a new network of forests in England... plant 11 million trees". We are facing a Climate Crisis. Shouldham Warren is one of our precious planet's lungs, capturing 11,000 tonnes of C02 per year. The Warren provides clean air, home to precious biodiversity and valuable educational space for children. The lack of an improved glass recycling plan to increase the amount of glass cullet available to UK glass manufacturers makes further quarrying for silica sand at the current rate morally wrong. "Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate the woodlands and agricultural farmland in AOS E and remove AOS E from the Mineral & Waste Local Plan.


Comments
in addition to the above comments I also object to the proposals as a very local resident who will be affected both directly and indirectly by increases in traffic and noise pollution. currently Tottenhill has sand extraction works to the west which under these proposals would extend to the south and east in effect surrounding a community with potential increases in noise and traffic on all sides. the infrastructure for transporting the proposed extraction is not currently adequate for the traffic levels as is let alone raising this even further. the current area is habitation for deer, nesting birds including nesting buzzard, kit, lesser spotted and greater spotted woodpecker, coal tits, great tits, long tail tit, to name just a few. along with Great crested newts, adders and other vertebrates within this area.
the use that the sand will be put to inevitably destroys a habitat by its very nature but the extraction destroys this one also. the construction industry are actively seeking other ways of building to reduce the carbon footprint that concrete production produces. lets nto add to it by transporting and destroying this local environment.