Object
Preferred Options consultation document
Representation ID: 98930
Received: 31/10/2019
Respondent: Ms Sarah Hayman
I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan, I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk Country Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the MOD when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham. well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worse case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be far greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightening 11: add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and Mental injuries, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
I object to the negative impact on villages/visitors health, According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels or respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function ( COPD Asthma ), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical, This fenland and forest ( Shouldham Warren ) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for Birds, Animals, and Insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern. including endangered species like Bats, Nightjars and Woodlarks. We need nature and tree's now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to, our Public Water, it is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderate productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulate lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - it's Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and had done nothing to engage witht the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost, and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landownders, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian compact Sibelco.
Given the County Councils are responsible for the private provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
I personally walk my daughter to school in Wormegay everyday. The A134 is already hugely used by industrialised traffic, with this additional traffic, this would make this road leading to the Watlington roundabout an accident hotspot, increase pollution near the school, and do nothing to enhance the health and wellbieng of those living in this area. In a time of increased focus on environmental responsibility and health and wellbeing, to allow this quarry would be a disruptive and retrograde step, rather than the responsible action required at this stage in the 21st century.
Please accept this e-mail as a record of my objection.
I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan, I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk Country Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the MOD when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham. well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worse case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be far greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightening 11: add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and Mental injuries, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
I object to the negative impact on villages/visitors health, According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels or respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function ( COPD Asthma ), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical, This fenland and forest ( Shouldham Warren ) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for Birds, Animals, and Insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern. including endangered species like Bats, Nightjars and Woodlarks. We need nature and tree's now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to, our Public Water, it is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderate productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulate lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - it's Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and had done nothing to engage witht the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost, and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landownders, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian compact Sibelco.
Given the County Councils are responsible for the private provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
I personally walk my daughter to school in Wormegay everyday. The A134 is already hugely used by industrialised traffic, with this additional traffic, this would make this road leading to the Watlington roundabout an accident hotspot, increase pollution near the school, and do nothing to enhance the health and wellbieng of those living in this area. In a time of increased focus on environmental responsibility and health and wellbeing, to allow this quarry would be a disruptive and retrograde step, rather than the responsible action required at this stage in the 21st century.
Please accept this e-mail as a record of my objection.