Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren
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 County 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 Ministry of Defence 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 worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; 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 caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers’/visitors’ health. 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. 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 bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees 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 in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
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 moderately 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 articulated 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 - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a ‘good neighbour’ and has done nothing to engage with 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 landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the 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.
Please record this as my objection,

RE: Objection to AOS E
Land between Marham and Shouldham including a Shouldham Warren
Leave our Countryside alone
Please find attached a letter provided by CATS Action Group, who are campaigning against the proposed Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan, which I would like you to accept as my formal objection.
I would also like to explain my personal reasons for my objection.
My wife and I retired to Shouldham in November 2017 after many years of working very hard so we could enjoy a good retirement. We chose to relocate to an area that was quiet, clean and which provided us with a quality of life after working hard for our retirement. Amongst other things, I wanted chickens and fresh eggs. My wife wanted a dog so we could walk and enjoy our beautiful countryside.
When choosing our retirement destination we were amazed to find the village of Shouldham. It fit our remit perfectly including the fact that we would have Shouldham Warren on our doorstep, It was, and remains perfect in very way. I trust it will remain perfect.

Well we successfully moved here. I got my chickens and we got a dog. We were in seventh heaven. Then shortly after we moved in the nightmare began!
How could this happen. Nothing showed up on the environmental reports we were provided with by our solicitor. Why?
This proposal has been in the pipeline for longer than we have lived here it seems. So, I ask again, why?
So we have spent our life saving for our retirement and bought a lovely house in a beautiful village adjacent to a magnificent forest to be told the forest could turn into a quagmire and / or a dust bath. Let's face it, Sibelco don't have a very good reputation regarding restoration. Our houses, gardens, cars and most importantly our children and grandchildren will be covered in dust. Our health will deteriorate. Our homes will be unsellable. Where does that leave the residents of Shouldham?
This proposal is an absolute disgrace. Our rural idyll will look like a desert instead of the current beautiful landscape that we people of Shouldham are fortunate to reside in We enjoy watching the wildlife - what will happen to them. The attached objection explains about the need for trees to combat pollution and provide a haven for endangered bats etc so I won't repeat this information in my covering letter. But, I speak for the trees and wildlife because they don't have voices!
If I can explain further. My wife and I previously lived in a large town and 22 years ago we moved to a village with a population of approximately 2,000. In the 20 years we lived there we saw and experienced the effects of new housing estates being added left, right and centre - literally! Our population was quadrupled (maybe more) and the infrastructure wasn't in place to support the additional cars, etc. However, this could've been called progress as people need houses to live in. Worse still our village was bombarded with convoys of lorries, which were being used to move tonnes of earth, aggregates and landfill in order build yet another estate miles from us. Unfortunately our village was the only access route and our village was decimated with traffic, noise and dirt. Oh boy, is this proposal being tabled regarding Shouldham Warren ringing large bells now!
This is now our threat yet again and this threat is overwhelmingly unacceptable. Might I add that having a quarry such as this proposal, is not progress!
As you can see, my wife and I live on New Road - is it the intention initially to have lorries booming past our beautiful and currently quiet existence? I hope not. I am aware that if this proposal goes ahead there are plans to build a road so as not to affect local residents further, but I've heard empty promises before and lived with the consequences of said empty promises! We can't even have local buses coming past our house now due to the congestion and the width of Westgate Street so god help us on New Road Because New Road will be your only available access route.
Why on earth does silica sand need to be excavated anyway. In this day and age why can't recycled glass be used? It is in other climate conscious countries! We, as a family, recycle all our glass, etc. Are we wasting our time and energy sorting out the wheat from the chaff each week?
May I also add that Shouldham Warren attracts lots of visitors in the form of walkers, with and without dogs, cyclists, horse riders etc. so, the Warren is not only a thing of natural beauty but also a fabulous means of exercise, which is what the government and local government promotes to people of all ages.
Getting out in the fresh air is known to reduce stress which is currently a massive issue in people's health problems. To take away great swathes of Shouldham Warren would have a detrimental effect by taking away this opportunity but also with the double whammy of air pollution. Visitors to this area would cease if this attraction were no longer here. The King's Arms pub, which was saved by the community and which is currently being refurbished and extended to meet demand, would certainly suffer. As would Chalk and Cheese our local bed and breakfast, not to mention other businesses in the area who rely on tourism. This proposal will harm our local industry and render it stone dead without our visitors!
Finally, I have to ask, have you actually visited the Warren at Shouldham or the village itself? If you haven't you should. If you have then you should know it's the correct and proper thing to withdraw Shouldham Warren from this utterly ridiculous proposal.