Question 74: Proposed site SIL 02 (land at Shouldham and Marham)

In reply to your letter of June 26th with reference to NMWLPR I would make the following points, one as a householder on the fringe of the preferred site and the other as the Trustee Treasurer of the Marham Poors Allotments whose two areas of land are at the eastern and southern edges of the proposed site.
As a householder I would be opposed to any quarrying on this preferred site which would certainly cause disruption in the whole area. There are footpaths across the site and the 14ft drain as well as archaeological sites as well as the northern boundary being adjacent to the River Nar. I believe there are also main pipelines from Anglian Water's pumping station at Hoggs Drove across the site. If the worst happens and permission is granted what provisions will be put in place for reinstatement of the land. Because in many cases it appease these companies do not bother too much once they have extracted the minerals.
As a trustee of the Poors Allotments which was the result of an Inclosure Award of May 20th 1796 in pursuance of the 1793 act of Parliament resulting in a scheme set forth to the order of the Charity Commissioners 12th December 1868 and in the Charities Act 1960 we have two main areas of land comprising
1. The Big Fen at Hoggs Drove on the eastern boundary of the proposed site. This covers about 142 acres and is leased to Anglian Water for the extraction of drinking water which is treated at their Marham site and pumped to many villages and towns. Any disturbance or contamination must not be allowed.
2. The Small Fen is of about 63 acres south of the site and is arable and grazing. It also contains the allotments for the villagers.
As Trustees we are charged with looking after these two sites and income generated is distributed to the pensioners and sick of the village.
I hope you will bear the points in mind when discussing proposed developments.

Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review: Initial Consultation
Thank you for your consultation on the above site, received on 28 June 2018.
We welcome the inclusion of an assessment of flooding from all sources within the Plan.
We would like to provide information which you may wish to consider in relation to Policy MW2 and MW4.
Policy MW2: We suggest that the wording of point d) is changed to include groundwater flooding. Mineral working can change local drainage networks, including groundwater flow (though creation of a void or dewatering) and so there should be no adverse impact on this source of flooding also.
We note that the intention is that flood risk is not increased elsewhere by development through the provision of appropriate surface water management such as sustainable drainage (SuDS). We support this approach but highlight to all potential development that working of minerals may remove infiltration media (as part of the operation). Hence any drainage scheme may rely on connection to a watercourse which is not always apparent near to the scheme. We would also request that during the works and following reinstatement a drainage strategy is put forward that considers the changes to local drainage network e.g. interception of watercourses or drainage connections. Any current drainage arrangements should be maintained or diverted appropriately. Reinstatement of land can replace permeable material with less permeable, this along with the post development ground levels must not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
Policy MW4: We welcome that that this policy supports policy MW2 with the provision of flood risk assessments (FRA) and although not specifically stated we assume that this policy's intention is that any FRA will include appropriate consideration of the most up to date climate change allowances.

It is accepted that Mineral working is a water compatible development which can be
undertaken in most areas at risk of flooding, however, we would highlight that any impacts should be considered during a planning application and appropriate measures. These measures may not be required until reinstatement when post development ground levels are considered in detail.
With regard to specific sites put forward we have the following comments:
MIN12 - Beetley - We would like to highlight that we are aware of reports of external flooding (2017) in the village on Fakenham Road. As the site at the top of two catchments, half of the proposed site drains towards the village and half away. Any proposal would need to consider this during its design.
MIN 37 - Buxton - We would like to highlight that we are aware of reports of flooding internally and externally adjacent the site boundary (2015 and 2016). Any proposal would need to consider these local flooding issues and if assess potential opportunities to improve existing flooding problems
SIL02 - Marham - We would like to highlight that we are aware of reports of flooding internally (2016) on The Street, Marham. Although the proposal is downgradient of this location any proposal would need to consider this during its design.

The loss of landscape and amenity would be obtrusive and detrimental to the visual amenity of the area as a whole.

Desirability of the adjacent properties in question, or the locality, may affect the potential property values, particularly in the stage up to the permission being granted when the uncertainty of whether the sand extraction is to proceed.

The quarry sites will be used as landfill, which is a concern due to the inappropriate current regulations of the Landfill Directive.

Assurance must be given that each quarry site is reinstated prior to moving onto the next site throughout the development.

That a corridor of trees is supplied in Spring Lane, the main adjacent landholding to the proposed development.

That the current Public Right of Way (PROW), which provides the present link from the village to the river and Shouldham Warren, is retained as it would be detrimental to the village as a whole if this were lost.

I am totally against this proposed site of sand extraction on the outskirts of our peaceful villages of Marham & Shouldham. The disturbance to the local area would be unexceptable, noise pollution etc.

I am a resident of Marham and so would like to raise my concerns and obections to proposed mining of Silica in the area.

Firstly, I feel that the process so far has not been open and inclusive of the residents.The first document 26th June -4th August 2017 unknown to most residents of Marham

The second document was also not publicised for Marham residents and I came across it by accident last Friday. My local Parish councillor stated that they had not known themselves until 4 weeks ago. Shouldham residents however were contacted by letter and have since had public meetings. Being able to access on the website without prior notification has been poor.

My objections along with the lack of fair notification are as follows:

1.The site chosen is farm land and will be lost forever to the Country at a time when we are neeing to be self sufficient

2. It also is an area of widlife and rare birds which also may then be lost for ever if their habitat is disturbed.

3. The area provides an area of relaxation and excersise for the residents.....the view of the fen and surrounding farmland attracts residents to the area and house prices locally reflect this.It is crucial to the well being and health of residents

4. Marham village already exists alongside a busy air base, which residents tolerate as their is an escape into beautiful countryside. The serice personnel also use the local countryside for R and R and would also be affected in their enjoyment of the area.

5. The mine will be visible from Marham Village as we are higher than the fen, despite reassurances in the document that it will not be visible ( Shouldham residents)

6. North Westerly winds will bring polution regularly from the site which will have serious health effects and inconveiniance to local residents and property

7. Night time working will also bring light pollution as well as disturbance of sleep which also has significant impact on health.

8. The risk of drainage and flooding has not been openly discused and neither has the disruption after the product has been extracted and the amount of refill which will be required with lorry and machinery causing significant disruption and noise to all residents. The Marham residents not being considered at all.

9. The mining is bound to have effect on house prices locally and residents may find themselves in considerable negative equity.

I have been unable to find out who my local Borough Councillor is so I would appreciate being given this information as I wish to keep in contact over this issue.
I would also apreciate an explanation as to why Marham residents were not given prior warning to this proposal as the Shouldham residents have been.

Sadly all the proposal sites seem to be in beautiful locally used locations that have brought happiness to the residents for many years.
I understand that farming has become in many instances unsustianable but as we go into the unknown of Brexit we need our farmland more than ever and efforts should be in conserving and not destroying in my view.

RE. Consultation for the planned silica sand extraction by SIBELCO behind Spring Lane and Mere plot near Marham and Shouldham, Kings Lynn, NORFOLK.
Please accept this letter as a formal objection to the above.
As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most other residents, was totally unaware or advised of such a scheme until a neighbour informed me of it a few days ago. Apparently only 10 letters were sent out to properties closest to the site. It now also appears that this plan has been discussed by the county council for over three years. The consultation period for this development ends in the next few days giving the residents of Marham and Shouldham insufficient time to review and comment on such a scheme. Considering the size and nature of this planned development this is totally unacceptable and unprofessional. Why have we not been made aware of this plan earlier?

Fortunately a meeting was held by Shouldham Parish Council 6th August 2018 and the following key points were identified;
* If approved, the first phase of the project will involve the stripping of all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields allowing access to the sand below. This will involve the use of heavy duty earth moving equipment.
* The second phase will involve the flooding of the land and dredging on the sand, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No restriction on working hours has been planned. There are also concerns as this type of dredging has not been carried out by Sibelco in the UK before.
* Planned start date 2026 for a period in excess of 20 years.

The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues
a. Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated.
b. Mow Fen, a country Wildlife site, is located within this area
c. The Carbon footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Plants and agricultural farmland.
d. Any screening or Bunding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?

2. Health and safety
a. The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues. Smaller particles of sand and dust will travel long distances and easily reach properties in Marham and Shouldham. This area of land is extremely flat with no natural barriers to slow or prevent the movement of dust and fine particles from the site to the adjacent properties. The effects of this on the health of the elderly, asthma sufferers and those with breathing issues will be significant.

The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm
Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. Heavy and prolonged exposure to RCS can cause lung cancer and other serious respiratory diseases. HSE commissioned estimates it was responsible for the death of over 500 construction workers in 2005. In addition to the risks from lung cancer, silica is also linked to other serious lung diseases:
* Silicosis can cause severe breathing problems and increases the risk of lung infections. Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS over many years, but extremely high exposures can cause acute silicosis more quickly.
* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung diseases including bronchitis and emphysema. It results in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death.

The NHS website also states;
www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/
Silicosis
Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years.
Silica is a substance naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Working with these materials can create a very fine dust that can be easily inhaled.
Once inside the lungs, the dust particles are attacked by the immune system.
This causes swelling (inflammation) and gradually leads to areas of hardened and scarred lung tissue (fibrosis). Lung tissue that's scarred in this way doesn't function properly.
People who work in the following industries are particularly at risk:
* stone masonry and stone cutting - especially with sandstone
* construction and demolition - as a result of exposure to concrete and paving materials
* pottery, ceramics and glass manufacturing
* mining and quarrying
* sand blasting

3. Noise, dust and light pollution
a. The area under consideration is extremely flat with no natural noise, light or dust barriers. Therefore screening will be ineffective and the entire site will be visible to the majority of the residents of Marham. There is no Bunding large enough to provide a barrier against the noise and light pollution this work will cause. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable.

4. Access to site
a. The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing a pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping. However the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Dec 2017) page 11 states;

"The area of search is approximately 15 kilometres from the Leziate processing plant and it is considered likely that any extraction site would transfer mineral to the processing plant by road."
There is some confusion and misinformation over this issue.
5. The Water Table / Flood plain
a. The majority of the land under review is currently part of a HIGH RISK flood plain. The plan by Sibelco is to flood this area in order to dredge the sand. This will only increase the chance of future flooding in the area in the absence of the flood plain. Any Bunding and piles of surface soil and clay will only reduce the natural flow of water and increase the risk of flooding further.
b. Anglian water have a sewage pumping station in close proximity to the site. They also have a number of bore holes across Marham Fen for the extraction of clean water, how will these be affected by the plan.
c. Concerns have already been expressed and documented by the Council on a restoration plan after the 20 year period involving the creation of a lake and wetlands. The concern is the increase in birds and wild fowl resulting in potential bird strikes on aircraft in close proximity to RAF Marham. Surely the initial flooding of the land for the dredging will also cause this issue.

6. Value to the community.
a. What is the value of such a project to the local community and Britain? Sibelco is not a British company, its head offices are based in Belgium. The value of this type of sand is extremely high and profits made from the sale of this material will be of great value to BELGIUM and not the UK.
b. There will also be no job benefits to the local community as the manpower required to run the planned dredging operations is less than the current services of those working the land. There will therefore be a reduction in jobs and absolutely no value or benefit of such a scheme to the local community.

7. Property Value
a. This will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least 28 years. Who wants to live near and look at a Silica sand extraction plant that will be in opened from 2026 and in operation for at least 20 years, probably much longer?

Please accept the above points as part of our formal objection to the planned sand extraction by Sibelco,

There are specific points I wish to make regarding two sites in the consultation document but I would also wish to make a point regarding the consultation process:-
1. The process does not really wok. Using just the prescribed media not longer is fit for purpose. Only specific people will use the Statutory Notices pages of the selected media, not people in general. I was fortunate in that my local parish council clerk had me on an e-mail list otherwise I would not have known of this at all. Out West - well away from the cauldron of Norwich we have minimal contact with NCC, even less regarding any planning consultation process. You have to be actively looking for information especially through a broadcast medium such as the internet and clearly this has not worked other than through the very narrow base of local government contacts.
The consultation system needs a complete overhaul to become meaningful.

With regard to two sites in the consultation document I have some comments to make. One is site SIL2 west of Marham and the other AOS Site E North of Shouldham and the Main Policy 13.

Regarding SIL2 I would anticipate RAF Marham wold be concerned should the proposed extraction method (dredging) result in a rise in birds strike risk especially as each new aeroplane will cost more than the probable profit arising from the extraction of sand from this site.
Also SIL2 overlaps with the AOS Site E to some degree and it is not acceptable that SIL2 is also and AOS Site E because it provides doubt on the validity of SIL2 and really confirms AOS Site E is not a search area but a really long term proposal being put on hold until SIL2 is worked out.

Regarding the drawn area of AOS Site E the summary of the evaluation leaves aside any planning factor which does not support the proposal or can be summarily ignored in that evaluation. I am sure many others will raise a number of concerns but I will summerise mine with a few factors.
1. Shouldham Warren is a widely used area for recreation - perhaps 50,000 visits each year. The closure of the land for recreational purposes (including people from outside the Kings Lynn catchment area) should be taken into account.
2. The area contains colony of adders (however many people hate them, especially when they kill pet animals) and maybe other species and their right to exist should be acknowledged in the evaluation.
3. I suspect that the AOS does not exclude all residential properties within that area. Working from a OS map is suspect as it has not been updated in detail for twenty years or more. Being a rural area not enough units of change in any density have resulted in any detailed updates being made to the map base for 15 years or more.
4. The forestation is at risk for any scale of mineral extraction. The life of a tree before felling will be towards 30 years. Mineral extraction will put maybe fourty year break on this - and then only if the area was to return to being a managed forest - and this would seriously dent the carbon capture affect of trees in this area.
5. There is no benefit of SIL2 becoming a recreation area (water based) after extraction finishes because it is different to the value of Shouldham Warren (foot, bicycle and horse based). There are other worked out quarries in the area providing water based recreational facilities but no alternative to Shouldhan Warren exists in this area.
6. As AOS-E is adjacent to (and overlaps) SIL02. in these proposals then it would make sense to extend the proposed pipeline from SIL02 to AOS-E as a requirement of any extraction taking place there (should that come to pass).
7. SIL01, AOS-F, AOS-I, AOS-J and MN40 also mention silica sand. As SIL02 would be the largest extraction proposal the promoters of this site would clearly wish to concentrate their resources at one place than spread across a collection of smaller sites although some are already being worked. It should be made clear if the other sites are alternatives or additional sites to be added to a very long term list of proposals and the consequent time scale involved - after all this plan is supposed to be until 2036 not 2066.

With regards to MP13 I find the statements contained and in comparison with the indicative maps shown in the document most confusing. The maps clearly show a protection zone around residential premises but the policy does not include any comment on the evaluation of proposals against its effects on people. It concentrates on flora, forna and ground conditions with absolutely no reference to the destruction of dwellings or any activity of people as though people do not exist. One should either confirm the content of MP13 by showing and dwelling or any structure actually affected by the proposals by not excluding them, or preferably adding to MP13 reference to the effect the proposals would have being judged against any affect on individuals or people in general. (It is not clear if another MP does include that as a factor in the evaluation). Either way this part of the consultation seems to be both a cake and the eating of it!
If residential premises can be excluded for sites then recreational areas should also be excluded, meaning AOS-E should fall as a potential extraction site.

We live in Marham close to the proposed site.
We moved to this area to raise our Daughter in a quiet rural village with
clean open areas close to our property to walk in.
We are worried about the increase in traffic and any health issues that may
occur due to the site, not to mention the noise and air pollution.
The proposed site is extremely large and will no doubt change the beautiful
landscape that first attracted us here, regardless of the buffers and
screening suggested.
We hope that this does not go ahead.

I strongly object to the proposed site of almost 1000 acres for the extraction of silica sand. We are a small rural village and already have noise from the planes at RAF Marham. That is inevitable and it was my choice to live here, however the disruption, noise and fallout from sand particles is unacceptable. The company has stated that after use the area would be landscaped and filled with water. This would not be conducive to RAF Marham as it would be a major attraction for birds. The area proposed is beautiful with wildlife and would be destroyed .

I for one appreciate the landscape we have and do not envisage this project being popular. I am concerned about the implications this project could have on the environment I call my home.

Shouldham/Marham proposal would require diversion of PRoW FP9. This is the only direct route to the river from the village and if removed would leave just the path via Marham Fen, or a route through Shouldham Warren. Both at unacceptable distances from FP9 and this part of the village. FP9 diversion not to be greater than 100m at any point from present position.

As a very new resident to Marham I most strongly object to the proposal of a silica sand site within the village and certainly within view. All this beautiful area has to offer, the woods and walks around the fen and River Nar will be affected by this proposed site.
The noise and light pollution alone will destroy our quality of life, and what happens to this massive crater left in our country side once excavation will finish? We would probably be left with just another land fill site. So NO it must not be allowed to happen and hopefully The MOD will fight the proposal along with all residents.

I write in connection with the proposed mineral extraction site at shouldham/Marham.

I have examined the plan and know the site well.
I wish to object strongly to the extraction site in this area.
As a resident of Marham, who's property would overlook this site I have several objections.

The first being Air pollution. Dust/sand from the site would be a major source of air pollution to Marham. The air pollution is not only a nuisance (in terms of deposition on surfaces) and possible effects on health, in particular for those with respiratory problems but dust will also have physical effects on surrounding plants.

Noise pollution. Quarrying involves several activities that generate noise. It will start when the preparatory activities such as establishing roads, pipe work access then the process of exposing the sand to be extracted which will be done by either using scraping or hydraulic excavators and dump trucks.

With RAF Marham so close to the site careful consideration should be given. The quarry will attract large numbers of birds which in turn could have catastrophic consequences for the jets flying in and out of Marham.

And finally not a material consideration but it needs to be said, we bought our house as a nest egg for retirement and now in one foul swoop this quarry could potentially wipe 20% off its market value!

I look forward to any response and hope my objections are given careful consideration.

We would like to record our objection to the proposed gravel and sand extraction site between Marham and Shouldham.

I went along to a Parish Council meeting this week and heard some details of a potential dredging site for silica sand close to Shouldham, Shouldham Warren and Marham. There were many concerns raised and no doubt many people have written to you on these.
I am particularly concerned about the health issues which may result from such fine sand being released into the atmosphere, with a link to silicosis already documented.
Apart from that, the Warren is a well used recreational facility for people living in the area and others who visit specifically to cycle, run, etc. and it is much valued by all of us. Turning it into a quarry would be very unwelcome. If it is turned into lakes after the extraction process is finished that would not be satisfactory as it would bring hazards to the nearby RAF Marham, namely with an increase in bird population. An increase in birds may not be popular with farmers either, the other major industry in the area.
The roads in this area are little more than lanes, and the thought of trucks of waste being carried through our village or having new roads built close by would totally destroy the local environment.
On a personal note, my husband and I moved to the quiet country area of Shouldham to avoid the pollution and noise of London. We had hoped for a quiet retirement in the country. To have those dreams potentially shattered is quite distressing.
I understand this is all at a consultative level at the moment, but I would ask you to think again about using this area for any mineral extraction. Although the local population is not large, we are spread out and several people live in the Warren itself and on the approach roads to it such as Spring Lane.
I personally worry about the noise, the light pollution of activities being carried out at night, the increased pollution to the atmosphere and potentially the water table in the area, the increased traffic and loss of recreation, and the general disturbance it would cause. Please think again about including this area in your consideration of this as a suitable area as it most definitely is not!

As a resident of Marham I would like to lodge my objection to the planned Sibelco silica sand extraction site between Shouldham and Marham.

My objection is for the following reasons:-

1. At this current time, no restoration plans have been proposed. This is an extremely important issue, as many previous extraction sites have been left in a very poor and dangerous condition. I do think that this needs to be consulted on before any further planning goes ahead.
2. There have been no working hours restrictions proposed by Sibelco, with the representative stating that 24 hour extraction could take place if the dredging method is used. This obviously causes great concern regarding light and noise pollution, in what is deemed as a dark sky area. There are also horseshoe and other species of bat in the area, which would also be affected by light pollution.
3. Screening of the quarry is likely to be largely ineffective for Marham residents due to the elevation above the site. The screening by bunding would also be inappropriate for a river valley setting, especially with the historic connections between Pentney Abbey and Marham Priory. This would obstruct a view that has been there for nearly a thousand years and the reason we choose to live there!
4. The road network in the area is not designed to withstand an increase of large machinery traffic, which comes as part of the territory with these types of extractions. There is no access point I can determine, which does not use small poorly maintained roads.
5. The site is extremely close to the River Nar, which is an important chalk stream habitat, which is of high amenity value to the residents of the area. As well as the amenity value, there is a high conservation value, with populations of water voles and great crested newts spotted on a regular basis. Any further quarrying in this area or indeed construction of a dredging pipeline, could have disastrous consequences for important and rare species.
6. There is also the health issue to consider. This area has already has a higher than average level of COPD and other respiratory issues. This along with a large percentage of elderly residents ( there are two retirement parks in the village), could have long term consequences for the health of Marham residents.

Please take the above points as my formal objection to this proposal.

I would like to make an objection to the proposed mineral extraction site SIL02 Shouldham/Marham as this would have nothing but an adverse impact on the local area and it's inhabitants for a potential period of twenty years or more.
SA2 suggests that there would be no impact on air quality from the digging activities, this will inevitably release Silica dust into the air which will be carried on the wind to the wider population. I know that in the information provided it claims that dust would not travel beyond 250m, but as sand from the Sahara can make it to the UK, I don't believe this really holds any water. SA9 suggests that there would be no significant impact on health and as there has been no studies done into the effects on the local population with regards to COPD, Silicosis and Lung cancers caused by mining silica sand, I am not convinced this is a valid statement. Every exposure to Silica increases your risk of developing one of the above diseases and it is the fine dust which is less than one twentieth of the diameter of a human hair which is most harmful. Due to the size of the dust it would not be possible to see it with the naked eye and you would be blissfully unaware of the exposure.
There is a claim that there will be no impact on the local community through noise and vibration, which i will have to disagree with as it is not possible to create a hole as large as the area being suggested without creating a considerable nuisance over an extended period of time.
There will be no social or economic benefit to either community while in progress or once the site has been vacated. Despite the optimistic outlook in the initial part of the report due to the depth of the excavation it will most likely be left as open water and devoid of the enhanced bio-diversity. The site will be blot on the landscape in an otherwise unspoilt historical landscape.
SA10 claims that there will be no impact on the water in the area around the site. Marhams' drinking water comes from underground on the fen and so this hole is going to be dug close by, can you honestly say that there will be no impact on the water table and our drinking through pollution and drainage. The Sibelco representative at recent meeting in Shouldam suggested that there would be no impact on the water table, but if you, dig water will naturally seep in until the hole is filled and the water levels equal, so this will be taken from the surrounding area.
The plan to create extra areas or one large area of water in close proximity to marham an possibly within Marhams circuit will greatly enhance the risk of bird strikes and the danger to aircrew, the general public and the nations military assets.
This report appears to paint a picture of a low impact and harmless site, which will benefit us all. but I do not believe this to be the case, as it may well have long term health effects on us, its' neighbours.

I am writing with regards to a meeting held at Shouldham Village Hall, on Monday 6th August 2018 at 7.30pm. The meeting was held for both residents of Marham and Shouldham to discuss the proposed Sibelco UK Ltd development of land within both of these villages for the extraction of Silica sand (SIL 02 land at Shouldham and Marham)

We would like for you to accept this E-mail, as our formal objection of this proposal, for the following reasons:

Environmental impact

The proposed area to be affected by this development is vast, the land in this area is predominantly agricultural with wooded areas and a river. Other than when crops are being set, tended to or harvested, the area is quiet and a beautiful place to walk, because of this there is a huge array of wildlife, including swans, deer, owls and bats. We feel that we are very lucky to be close to such a haven and are concerned that the development will impact greatly on this.
Whilst we understand the need for resources, the amount of time, money and labour that would go into a project like this, would surely be better spent on recycling existing materials, instead of constantly exploiting the earth and nature.


Scenic impact

As residents of The Street in Marham, the view that we and the majority of people in Marham have at the moment is unspoilt for as far as the eye can see, this is certainly something that was taken into account when we purchased our property, we feel that the development is likely to impact on all of our house prices as much as our views. Silbelco have proposed 'screening of works' but no details of this have been given, and as much of Marham is on a hill, the screen would have to be considerably high and most likely unsightly.

Extraction and Health Impact

At the meeting the representative from Silbelco said that they would like to use a dredger boat/barge with a pump to extract the Silica sand before transporting it elsewhere, but this again is not the confirmed method, other methods that may be adopted could easily result in heavy machinery releasing fine particles of Silica into the air, this we have been advised, is a serious health risk, especially to the young and elderly. From the proposed site area the Junior school within Marham is clearly visable and higher than its surrounding neighbours.

We would be most grateful if you would consider these concerns.

the loss of landscape and amenity would be obtrusive and detrimental to the visual amenity of the area as a whole.

 desirability of the adjacent properties in question, or the locality, may affect the potential property values, particularly in the stage up to the permission being granted when the uncertainty of whether the sand extraction is to proceed.

 the quarry sites will be used as landfill, which is a concern due to the inappropriate current regulations of the Landfill Directive.

 assurance must be given that each quarry site is reinstated prior to moving onto the next site throughout the development.

 that a corridor of trees is supplied in Spring Lane, the main adjacent landholding to the proposed development.

 that the current Public Right of Way (PRoW), which provides the present link from the village to the river and Shouldham Warren, is retained as it would be detrimental to the village as a whole if this was lost.

 the loss of landscape and amenity would be obtrusive and detrimental to the visual amenity of the area as a whole.

 desirability of the adjacent properties in question, or the locality, may affect the potential property values, particularly in the stage up to the permission being granted when the uncertainty of whether the sand extraction is to proceed.

 the quarry sites will be used as landfill, which is a concern due to the inappropriate current regulations of the Landfill Directive.

 assurance must be given that each quarry site is reinstated prior to moving onto the next site throughout the development.

 that a corridor of trees is supplied in Spring Lane, the main adjacent landholding to the proposed development.

 that the current Public Right of Way (PRoW), which provides the present link from the village to the river and Shouldham Warren, is retained as it would be detrimental to the village as a whole if this was lost.

This is a large site where suitable buffer zones could be employed to ensure protection of the River Nar, Marham Fen County Wildlife Site and Pentney Abbey Gatehouse and its setting.

Following a chance conversation with my neighbour I wanted to express my concern at the proposed site.

Lack of notification;
I was wholly unaware of the plans or the meetings. It was not well publicised or communicated. The proposal for an email group will only work for the people who know about the proposal. A re-think is needed on communication strategy for the consultation to be meaningful. I would suggest Sibelco invest in a leaflet drop to every home in the villages- a tiny investment for full and proper engagement. Alternatively, most people will be on social media so a sponsored and targeted advert on social media would equally get engagement.

Archaeology
Looking at the proposal it is noted the site has multiple periods of archaeological finds from it but has not been fully searched. I cannot see how a desk-top exercise on an previously un-searched area will turn anything out, as it has not been properly searched. Without doing a full and proper investigation there is a significant loss of archaeology which would be unacceptable.

Increased road use
I note that there is a proposal for a new road to the processing plant. However, i cannot see how the plant will avoid increasing the number of trucks/ cars down very narrow lanes. Living down Westgate street we already have relative chaos every hour when the bus comes through. Additionally, I live in a very old cottage- 250+ years old. I am deeply worried at how the increased traffic- presumably from HGV- will have on the integrity of my and other houses of similar age.

Dust/ noise
I note there is a need for plans to address dust and noise pollution. I moved into Shouldham this year. One of the reasons was the peace and quiet. The prospect of having a 24/7 industrial noise in the village is just hideous. I do accept there is noise from RAF Marham, but that is periodic- not all of the time. What is the Db predicted from the plant?

Loss of beauty
Looking at other sites where extraction happens they look just awful. They look like what they are- industrial. The signage is industrial. The fencing is industrial. The dust and dirt on the roads is god awful ugly. That is before you consider the horror that will be left afterwards.

Increased danger
This is a safe area. Safe for children and animals. I cannot see anywhere in your plans how the increased danger to people and animals has been addressed. Children explore, animals roam. How will they be kept safe from the dangers of extraction, or the pits that are left behind. This is aside the increased danger from greater numbers of vehicles using the roads. The area is very popular for cyclists- weekdays and weekends. On such narrow roads this could turn the roads into death traps. Widening the roads might be one option, but would fundamentally destroy the charm of the area. Improved roads would also encourage even more traffic. At the moment they are avoided for the very reason they are narrow.

We have a lot of wildlife in the area- deer amongst the species. What safeguards and considerations are being given to the wildlife protection during extraction? This is beyond

Habitat disturbance
I note in the paperwork that the area is one of the last areas of untouched grassland in Norfolk. How can it be right to allow this to be destroyed forever?

The village has a significant number of bat roosts. I personally have two types of bat in my loft. One of which hibernates to the forest. How will you ensure these protected species will not be disturbed by the proposals?

Opportunities
There are opportunities for the company to think about how to improve the area- should it be used. This is beyond just sticking a bit of grass there and calling it a 'low bird-strike habitat'. Engage with the community and beyond to propose something different for us as the community in your applications- rather than just pillaging our area and leaving us with massive holes where the once valuable asset laid.

I and my husband wish to object to this application in the strongest possible terms. We feel that this extraction will impact considerably on the villages of Shoulham and Marham and have a detrimental effect on the value of house prices in both villages and considerably reduce the air quality and noise levels from the workings. We feel that it impossible to place a positive effect from air quality issues as the disturbed soil will lead to very much reduced air quality in dry weather conditions regardless of how the silica sand is extracted.

I strongly object to this being done on our beautiful land in Marham.
It was my choice 16 years ago to move here to have a quieter peaceful retirement life, surrounded by the lovely open space country life.
Why make so many people un-happy by rueing our beautiful countryside? I hope and pray this does not be allowed to happen.
Of all the people I have spoken to, not one of them approve of this disaster to happen here in Marham, or Shouldham.

Concerns for site SIL02 for the extraction of Silica Sand from land at Shouldham & Marham.

I live in a property in Marham village that would overlook the site and would be approximately 500m from the boundary of the site.

I have the following concerns:

1. There would be dust pollution in the air which would come from the site which could potentially cause silicosis or breathing related illnesses. Whilst you state that dust would not travel beyond 250m of the boundary of the site I don't know how this would be able to be controlled as surely it is dependant on wind strength and direction.

2. There would be noise from the site, as following a meeting held by Shouldham parish council with a representative from the company proposing to run the site, they stated that they would have to remove the top layers of the soil and clay before they can get to the sand. They would then use water to create a lake and float a dredge on top to pump the sand out through a pipeline. We would then have excavation noise and pumping noise from the site. Some of which could be 24 hours a day as the company stated that the pumping could operate 24 hours a day.

3. The creation of a lake for the dredging to work would significantly increase the number of birds to the area which as you state in the proposal the site cannot be turned into a lake at the end of a project as it would be a hazard for the RAF Base as it would increase bird strikes for the aircraft so how can they create a lake for the extraction process.

4. The operating company stated that they have not operated a dredging system for sand removal before, therefore our worries are that if this system didn't work they would then revert to excavating the sand mechanically and transporting the sand to leziate by road causing even more noise issues. The roads around Marham and Shouldham would not be able to cope with this amount of traffic or weight of vehicles.

5. There would be light pollution from the site as presumably it would have to have security lighting around the site.
6. Concern regarding security at the site to prevent anyone drowning at the site, as flooded quarries like Bawsey have had drownings as people are attracted to swim in them during summer months. Also vandalism and theft and unauthorised camping which has also happened at Bawsey as these types of sites can attract unsociable behaviour to the area.
7. Environmental damage to the wildlife in the area as we do get a lot of wildlife including deer that travel from the woods across the fields and back to the safety of the woods.
8. The impact on the value of our property. We only purchased our property in January 2017. We purchased it because of its peaceful location and the views, all of which would be taken away by this proposal and nobody else is going to want to purchase our property or any other property in the village now that this proposal has been put forward. Whilst the possibility of this site is still possible the villages of Marham and Shouldham are going to be areas that nobody wants to buy properties in so we will be unable to afford to move away from it.
9. What would the site look like after all the sand has been removed as you state it can't be flooded to create a lake as you cannot attract more birds to the area due to the close proximity of the RAF base and the hazard of bird strikes for the aircraft. Does this mean it will be left as a scar on the landscape or is it likely to end up as a landfill site. We would then have to contend with smell as well as noise from lorries to the site.

* The area at Shouldham / Marham in Policy SIL02 is a 'Preferred Area' which is something beyond an 'Area of Search', but not as definite as an allocation.
* Whilst it is accepted that additional geological information has come forward from Sibelco, it will be disappointing to those communities locally who could draw some comfort from having a defined A of S perhaps containing the expectations of extraction to it.
* The expression of a 'preference' for extraction to take place beyond the A of S current boundary (Policy SIL 02) casts doubt of the certainty for other communities near to other A's of S.
* Notwithstanding these comments the NCC note that they expect a lesser area to actually come forward for allocation.
* There is a list of significant caveats / issues to be addressed before the potential extraction could proceed.
* It is interesting to note that a form of 'wet extraction' is proposed which could avoid some potential environmental problems.

Proposed Site SIL 02 As A Preferred Area for Silica Sand Extraction by SIBELCO UK Ltd Behind Spring Lane and Mere Plot Near Marham and Shouldham, Kings Lynn, NORFOLK. AOS E
Please accept this letter as a formal objection to the above.
As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most other residents, was totally unaware or advised of such a scheme until a neighbour informed me of it a few days ago. Apparently only 10 letters were sent out to properties closest to the site. It also appears that this plan has been discussed by the County Council for over three years. The consultation period for this development ends in the next few days giving the residents of Marham and Shouldham minimal time to review and comment on such a scheme. Considering the size and nature of this planned development this is totally unacceptable and unprofessional. Why have we not been made aware of this plan earlier?
Fortunately a meeting was held by Shouldham Parish Council 06 August 2018 and the following key points identified;
* If approved, the first phase of the project will involve the stripping of all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields to allow quarrying equipment access to the sand below. This will involve the use of heavy duty earth moving equipment.
* The second phase will involve the flooding of the land and dredging on the sand, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No restriction on working hours has been planned. There are also concerns as this type of dredging has not been carried out by Sibelco in the UK before.
* Planned start date 2026 for a period in excess of 20 years.
The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues
a. Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated.
b. Mow Fen, a country Wildlife site, is located within this area.
c. The Carbon Footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Nearly 400 hectares of good quality agricultural farmland will be lost forever at a time where, as a nation, we need to be considering growing more crops.
d. Any screening or binding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and the views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?

2. Health and safety
The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues.
Smaller particles of sand and dust will travel long distances and easily reach properties in Marham and Shouldham. This area of land is extremely flat with no natural barriers to slow or prevent the movement of dust and fine particles from the site to the adjacent properties. The effects of this on the health of the elderly, asthma sufferers and those with breathing issues will be significant.
The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm

Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. Heavy and prolonged exposure to RCS can cause lung cancer and other serious respiratory diseases. HSE commissioned estimates it was responsible for the death of over 500 construction workers in 2005. In addition to the risks from lung cancer, silica is also linked to other serious lung diseases:

* Silicosis can cause severe breathing problems and increases the risk of lung infections. Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS over many years, but extremely high exposures can cause acute silicosis more quickly.
* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung diseases including bronchitis and emphysema. It results in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death.

The NHS website also states; www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/

Silicosis
Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years.
Silica is a substance naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Working with these materials can create a very fine dust that can be easily inhaled. Once inside the lungs, the dust particles are attacked by the immune system.
This causes swelling (inflammation) and gradually leads to areas of hardened and scarred lung tissue (fibrosis). Lung tissue that's scarred in this way doesn't function properly.
People who work in the following industries are particularly at risk:
* stone masonry and stone cutting - especially with sandstone
* construction and demolition - as a result of exposure to concrete and paving materials
* pottery, ceramics and glass manufacturing
* MINING AND QUARRYING
* sand blasting

3. Noise, dust and light pollution
The area under consideration is extremely flat with no natural noise, light or dust barriers. The entire site will be visible to the majority of the residents of Marham due to Marham being on higher ground than the proposed site. Screening will, therefore, be ineffective or so tall as to block all views across the Fen from both Marham and Shouldham. There is no Bunding large enough to provide a barrier against the noise and light pollution this work will cause. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable.

4. Access to site
The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing an overland pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing after wet dredging but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping to prepare the site for each new dredge. Neither has consideration been given to the lack of appropriate roads for the necessary plant and HGV that would be required to transport the raw material to the Leziate processing plant should it be decided to dry dredge the site instead.

5. The Water Table / Flood plain
a. The majority of the land under review is currently part of a HIGH RISK flood plain. The plan by Sibelco is to flood this area in order to dredge the sand. This will only increase the chance of future flooding in the area in the absence of the flood plain. Any Bunding and piles of surface soil and clay will only reduce the natural flow of water and increase the risk of flooding further.
b. Anglian Water have a sewage pumping station in close proximity to the site. Theyalso have a number of bore holes across Marham Fen for the extraction of clean water. How will these be affected by the plan?
c. Concerns have already been expressed and documented by the Council on a restoration plan after the 20 year period involving the creation of a lake and wetlands. The concern is the increase in birds and wild fowl resulting in potential bird strikes on aircraft in close proximity to RAF Marham, with the risk of a major catastrophe from an aircraft crashing into a local built up area. The initial flooding of the land for the dredging will also cause this issue.

6. Value to the community.
a. What is the value of such a project to the local community and Britain? Sibelco is not a British company, its head offices are based in Belgium. The value of this type of sand is extremely high and profits made from the sale of this material will be of great value to BELGIUM and not the UK.
b. There will also be no job benefits to the local community as the manpower required to run the planned dredging operations is less than the current services of those working the land. There will therefore be a reduction in jobs and absolutely no value or benefit of such a scheme to the local community.

7. Property Value
This site will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least 28 years. Who wants to live near and look at a Silica sand
extraction plant that will be in opened from 2026 and in operation for at least 20 years, possibly longer?

Please accept the above points as a formal objection to the proposed silica sand extraction site SIL 02 proposed by Sibelco UK Ltd

I would like to add further to my original objection that I oppose both SIL 02 and AOS E. If you note this on my original objection.

Proposed Site SIL 02 As A Preferred Area for Silica Sand Extraction by SIBELCO UK Ltd Behind Spring Lane and Mere Plot Near Marham and Shouldham, Kings Lynn, NORFOLK. AOS E

Please accept this email as an objection to the above proposal.
I reside in the village of Marham I object to this planned development for the following reasons;

1. Environmental issues

If approved, the project will strip all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields to allow quarrying equipment access to the sand below. This will involve heavy duty equipment brought to the site - congestion and damage to already badly repaired/maintained roads, plus the noise, pollution and disruption to the villages affected by this project.

This large plot of land will be 'mined' for over 20 years, this WILL totally destroy the flora and fauna of this area and the landscape changed forever.

Nearly 400 hectares of good quality agricultural farmland will be destroyed. With an ever increasing population we as a nation, need to consider this land for agricultural rather than industrial uses.

Any screening or bunding of the site to mitigate noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape.
What will happen to the removed soil from the land stripping process?

2. Health and safety

The sand/silica/dust created has health and safety concerns. Sand and dust will easily reach properties in Marham and Shouldham, significantly affecting the health of the elderly, our children and those with pre-existing breathing difficulties.

3. Noise, dust and light pollution
The area is flat and this site will be visible to the majority of the residents of Marham, Marham being on higher ground than the proposed site. Screening will, therefore, be ineffective or so tall as to block all views across the Fen from both Marham and Shouldham. There is no bunding large enough to provide a barrier against the noise and light pollution this work will cause. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable

4. The Water Table / Flood plain

The land is currently part of a HIGH RISK flood plain. The plan by Sibelco is to flood this area in order to dredge the sand. This will only increase the chance of future flooding in the area.
Any bunding and piles of surface soil and clay will only reduce the natural flow of water and increase the risk of flooding further.

5. Local community.

What is the value of the proposal to the local community and Britain? Sibelco is not a British company, its head offices are based in Belgium. The value of this type of sand is extremely profitable.

There will be no job benefits to the local community as the manpower required to run the planned dredging operations is less than the current services of those working the land. There will therefore be a reduction in jobs and absolutely no value or benefit of such a scheme to the local community.

6. Property Value
This site will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least the next 28 years.


7. Other
The proximity to RAF Marham and the danger to aircraft from increased bird activity due to the excavation and subsequent flooding of the site. This would be a catastrophic event for the aircrew, the aircraft and the community if there is a crash and a total waste of taxpayers money to replace or repair the aircraft.

In conclusion; the destruction of this rural setting, reduced appeal to visitors and residents in the future and quality of life for residents of both villages now, will be impacted severely with little to gain for the local population/area who will bear the brunt of this project. This project will make the area poorer but considerable profit for SIBELCO.
Please accept the above points as a formal objection to the proposed silica sand extraction site SIL 02 proposed by Sibelco UK Ltd.

As a resident of Plumtree Park, in Marham, I wish to inform you that I strongly object to the proposal for a silica sand excavation site in the area of Marham and Shouldham.
I, and many of my fellow residents at Plumtree Park have used our own savings to come to live on this retirement park in this beautiful and tranquil area.
Should the proposal go ahead, I foresee the peacefulness and tranquillity being shattered, with noise, dust and the comings and goings of heavy vehicles. Also the landscape will obviously become scarred and the beauty of the area a thing of the past.
Also, this area is filled with lots of wild-life, which, should the proposal go ahead, will be greatly affected.
I do not understand why this proposal has been 'kept under wraps' until now, and we, the residents, have only just come to hear of it, giving us so little time to find out more about it and to place our objections before the 'deadline'.

Proposed Site SIL 02 As A Preferred Area for Silica Sand Extraction by SIBELCO UK Ltd Behind Spring Lane and Mere Plot Near Marham and Shouldham, Kings Lynn, NORFOLK.
Please accept this letter as a formal objection to the above.
As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most other residents, was totally unaware or advised of such a scheme until a neighbour informed me of it a few days ago. Apparently only 10 letters were sent out to properties closest to the site. It also appears that this plan has been discussed by the County Council for over three years. The consultation period for this development ends in the next few days giving the residents of Marham and Shouldham minimal time to review and comment on such a scheme. Considering the size and nature of this planned development this is totally unacceptable and unprofessional. Why have we not been made aware of this plan earlier?
Fortunately a meeting was held by Shouldham Parish Council 06 August 2018 and the following key points identified;
* If approved, the first phase of the project will involve the stripping of all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields to allow quarrying equipment access to the sand below. This will involve the use of heavy duty earth moving equipment.
* The second phase will involve the flooding of the land and dredging on the sand, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No restriction on working hours has been planned. There are also concerns as this type of dredging has not been carried out by Sibelco in the UK before.
* Planned start date 2026 for a period in excess of 20 years.
The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues
a. Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated.
b. Mow Fen, a country Wildlife site, is located within this area.
c. The Carbon Footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Nearly 400 hectares of good quality agricultural farmland will be lost forever at a time where, as a nation, we need to be considering growing more crops.
d. Any screening or binding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and the views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?
2. Health and safety
The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues.
Smaller particles of sand and dust will travel long distances and easily reach properties in Marham and Shouldham. This area of land is extremely flat with no natural barriers to slow or prevent the movement of dust and fine particles from the site to the adjacent properties. The effects of this on the health of the elderly, asthma sufferers and those with breathing issues will be significant.
The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm
Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. Heavy and prolonged exposure to RCS can cause lung cancer and other serious respiratory diseases. HSE commissioned estimates it was responsible for the death of over 500 construction workers in 2005. In addition to the risks from lung cancer, silica is also linked to other serious lung diseases:
* Silicosis can cause severe breathing problems and increases the risk of lung infections. Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS over many years, but extremely high exposures can cause acute silicosis more quickly.
* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung diseases including bronchitis and emphysema. It results in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death.
The NHS website also states; www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/
Silicosis
Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years.
Silica is a substance naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Working with these materials can create a very fine dust that can be easily inhaled. Once inside the lungs, the dust particles are attacked by the immune system.
This causes swelling (inflammation) and gradually leads to areas of hardened and scarred lung tissue (fibrosis). Lung tissue that's scarred in this way doesn't function properly.
People who work in the following industries are particularly at risk:
* stone masonry and stone cutting - especially with sandstone
* construction and demolition - as a result of exposure to concrete and paving materials
* pottery, ceramics and glass manufacturing
* mining and quarrying
* sand blasting
3. Noise, dust and light pollution
The area under consideration is extremely flat with no natural noise, light or dust barriers. The entire site will be visible to the majority of the residents of Marham due to Marham being on higher ground than the proposed site. Screening will, therefore, be ineffective or so tall as to block all views across the Fen from both Marham and Shouldham. There is no Bunding large enough to provide a barrier against the noise and light pollution this work will cause. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable.
4. Access to site
The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing an overland pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing after wet dredging but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping to prepare the site for each new dredge. Neither has consideration been given to the lack of appropriate roads for the necessary plant and HGV that would be required to transport the raw material to the Leziate processing plant should it be decided to dry dredge the site instead.
5. The Water Table/ Flood plain
a. The majority of the land under review is currently part of a HIGH RISK flood plain. The plan by Sibelco is to flood this area in order to dredge the sand. This will only increase the chance of future flooding in the area in the absence of the flood plain. Any Bunding and piles of surface soil and clay will only reduce the natural flow of water and increase the risk of flooding further.
b. Anglian Water have a sewage pumping station in close proximity to the site. They also have a number of bore holes across Marham Fen for the extraction of clean water. How will these be affected by the plan?
c. Concerns have already been expressed and documented by the Council on a restoration plan after the 20 year period involving the creation of a lake and wetlands. The concern is the increase in birds and wild fowl resulting in potential bird strikes on aircraft in close proximity to RAF Marham, with the risk of a major catastrophe from an aircraft crashing into a local built up area. The initial flooding of the land tor the dredging will also cause this issue.
6. Value to the community.
a. What is the value of such a project to the local community and Britain? Sibelco is not a British company, its head offices are based in Belgium. The value of this type of sand is extremely high and profits made from the sale of this material will be of great value to BELGIUM and not the UK.
b. There will also be no job benefits to the local community as the manpower required to run the planned dredging operations is less than the current services of those working the land. There will therefore be a reduction in jobs and absolutely no value or benefit of such a scheme to the local community.
This site will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least 28 years. Who wants to live near and look at a Silica sand extraction plant that will be in opened from 2026 and in operation for at least 20 years, possibly longer?
Please accept the above points as a formal objection to the proposed silica sand extraction site SIL 02 proposed by Sibelco UK Ltd