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

Comment

Representation ID: 92116

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Natural England

Given the potential for impacts identified on the River Nar, it would be helpful to include a specific requirement for these to be considered at the planning application stage.

Object

Representation ID: 92135

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Liz Brewer

My formal objection to the planned Sibelco silica sand extraction at the site behind Spring Lane and the Mere Plot near Shouldham and Marham. This is in reference to the letter sent to residences dated 26 June 2018, and the information subsequently made available to.

I would like to object to these plans made known for the following reasons:

1. No restoration plan has been proposed. This is possibly the most important issue, as many companies have simply abandoned workings leaving dangerous sites full of deep water and abandoned equipment, such as that which has happened at Bawsey. Another example of this happened at Pentney: the inappropriate development of what is effectively a new village around the workings disguised as "holiday cabins" because a normal development would not have been permitted. This type of working can so easily be used as a gateway to other semi-industrial or residential uses in a sensitive landscape. A detailed and ultimately enforceable restoration plan should be consulted upon and in place before any other permissions are granted, as this will be the ultimate legacy of this development.

2. It could be restored to a wetland habitat or grazing marsh, which is historically what most of the river valley was before the river was canalized for navigation, and the surrounding land drained for agriculture. There is now less than one percent of this habitat left in England! The RAF concern about bird strike over wetlands is surely spurious, as they are surrounded by disused gravel workings and choose to fly and train over The Wash (which has some of the highest concentrations of wetland birds in Europe). Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Norfolk Rivers Trust and Natural England would, surely, be more than happy to be involved in the development of a plan which could benefit the local environment and public enjoyment of the area.

3. Sibelco have not proposed any restriction on working hours, which suggests the possibility that work could continue at the site for 24 hours a day. For obvious reasons, this poses a significant worry regarding possible noise and light pollution.

4. Screening of the quarry is likely to be ineffective for the residents of Marham, due to its elevation above the site. There is no bunding that could be large enough to prevent light and noise pollution to the residents who already endure large amounts of this from the RAF base.

5. Screening by bunding or poor-quality conifer belts is inappropriate in a river valley setting, especially with the historically sensitive connection between Pentney Abbey and Marham Priory. Any obstruction of view across the fen valley would disrupt a scene which has been familiar for nearly a thousand years.

6. The rural road network is inappropriate for an increase in traffic which would inevitably occur- even if the sand was pumped out -as plant, equipment and men cannot be pumped in. There is no way into the site that does not pass through a village with narrow, poorly maintained roads.

7. The site's proximity to the River Nar, which is an important chalk stream habitat of national importance and a public right of way, means it would impact upon the public amenity of the area which has already been heavily quarried on the north side of the river. This is true especially if a pipeline or haul road were to be constructed. The site also contains species of national importance - such as water voles - although a sympathetic restoration of the site could improve the habitat from its current intensive agricultural use.

8. Archaeologically the area is very rich in finds from prehistoric to Roman to medieval, and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed by the workings. This, however, should be covered by the Norfolk archaeology unit prior to commencement of working. Please take the above points as formal reasons for objection to this plan. Until these points have been addressed and resolved, my objection will remain.

Object

Representation ID: 92138

Received: 12/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Nina Pepperill

RE: PROPOSED SITE SIL 02 As preferred area for Silica Sand extraction.
As resident of Marham for over 10 years I must unreservedly object to the proposed silica sand quarry in the heart of Marham Fen, Shouldham and the Nar Valley. This proposal is completely impractical for many reasons and will be detrimentally harmful to the environment and communities involved.
This may well be the preferred location for silica sand extraction; however, I believe that this development will have a devastating impact on 2 rural communities, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF base of strategic national importance.
The proposal put forward by Sibelco appear to be an optimistic "best case scenario", which plays down the negative impact for the communities, surrounding environment and ignores potential health concerns when taking into account the size and duration of the planned development.
In particular my objections are based on the following grounds:

Health/Safety and Environmental objections,
* Increased levels of noise, light and waste pollution. The proposal includes 24hr operation of this quarry. Marham already has high levels of noise pollution from military activity, adding to this is an unreasonable request of the community.
* It is the major area of dark sky between Marham airbase and Middleton aggregates at Pentney. The increased light pollution would adversely affect the Bat populations within this area and other nocturnal wildlife.
* Proposed screening of the quarry is likely to be ineffective for Marham residents especially those within close proximity and those on a high elevation who will look down onto the site.
* The site is known for its keen and prevailing North and North westerly winds which will aggravate the noise and dust pollution.
* The proposed screening by bunding would not be in keeping with the current environment which is a river valley setting with historic connections between Marham Abbey and Pentney Priory, It would obstruct a view that has been there for over a thousand years and the reason we bought our current home!
* The River Nar is a SSSI under Section 28 of the Wildlife and country act 1981. It is a chalk bed river and an integral part of this landscape. It supports an abundance of wildlife and protected species such as White Clawed Crayfish, Kingfisher, Barn Owls and Water voles to name a few. This eco structure would be irrevocably damaged should there be any attempt to take minerals from this area or construction of a dredging pipeline in the proposed site.
* Native and migrating wild birds use this land including Buzzards, Red Kites, Bearded Tits, Fieldfare and Lapwing some of which are protected species.
* The Nar valley is of high amenity value to local residents and ramblers.
* This is the only proposed site within a high- risk flood area. Flood risk would be exacerbated by removing ancient drainage ditches and soak away land.
* No information provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water table/supply and water quality.
* At this current time, no restoration plan has been proposed. This is important as many previous extraction sites have been left in poor or dangerous condition.

Infrastructure objections,
* The road system is classified as rural with its surface struggling and in poor condition generally.
* Existing roads are unsuitable for HGV's and plant access. Reflecting this RAF traffic is prohibited from the village.
* Increased traffic volume on A47 and A10 will impact negatively on already busy roads.
Economic objections,
* No proposed benefits to either village.
* No additional jobs for local residents.
* Reduction in house price values. Creation of "trapped "residents unable to sell their houses.
* Potential impact on household insurance due to increased flood risk.
Historical buildings,
* Pentney Abbey, Nar Bone Mill are sites of historical interest and must be protected from unwanted disturbances if there are to remain preserved for future generations.

Health objections,
* There is higher than national average of Lung related conditions (Including COPD, Emphysema and Asthma) in these communities. Exposure to pollutants and increased silica dust exposure will have a significant impact on their health.
* Not all dust is visible! Long term exposure (10-20 years) to the minute Silica dust particles carries a risk of Siliceous.
* Loss of public rights of way to access the Nar valley will impact negatively on physical and mental wellbeing.
* Increased stress and anxiety regarding, noise and pollution will have a detrimental effect on overall health.

Please take these above points as my formal objection to this proposed silica sand quarry site SIL 02

I am sure Norfolk county council will be able to find an alternative site that will not impact so negatively on the community and environment as proposed site SIL 02 does.

Object

Representation ID: 92140

Received: 12/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Jon Pepperill

RE: PROPOSED SITE SIL 02 As preferred area for Silica Sand extraction.
As resident of Marham for over 10 years I must unreservedly object to the proposed silica sand quarry in the heart of Marham Fen, Shouldham and the Nar Valley. This proposal is completely impractical for many reasons and will be detrimentally harmful to the environment and communities involved.
This may well be the preferred location for silica sand extraction; however, I believe that this development will have a devastating impact on 2 rural communities, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF base of strategic national importance.
The proposal put forward by Sibelco appear to be an optimistic "best case scenario", which plays down the negative impact for the communities, surrounding environment and ignores potential health concerns when taking into account the size and duration of the planned development.
In particular my objections are based on the following grounds:

Health/Safety and Environmental objections,
* Increased levels of noise, light and waste pollution. The proposal includes 24hr operation of this quarry. Marham already has high levels of noise pollution from military activity, adding to this is an unreasonable request of the community.
* It is the major area of dark sky between Marham airbase and Middleton aggregates at Pentney. The increased light pollution would adversely affect the Bat populations within this area and other nocturnal wildlife.
* Proposed screening of the quarry is likely to be ineffective for Marham residents especially those within close proximity and those on a high elevation who will look down onto the site.
* The site is known for its keen and prevailing North and North westerly winds which will aggravate the noise and dust pollution.
* The proposed screening by bunding would not be in keeping with the current environment which is a river valley setting with historic connections between Marham Abbey and Pentney Priory, It would obstruct a view that has been there for over a thousand years and the reason we bought our current home!
* The River Nar is a SSSI under Section 28 of the Wildlife and country act 1981. It is a chalk bed river and an integral part of this landscape. It supports an abundance of wildlife and protected species such as White Clawed Crayfish, Kingfisher, Barn Owls and Water voles to name a few. This eco structure would be irrevocably damaged should there be any attempt to take minerals from this area or construction of a dredging pipeline in the proposed site.
* Native and migrating wild birds use this land including Buzzards, Red Kites, Bearded Tits, Fieldfare and Lapwing some of which are protected species.
* The Nar valley is of high amenity value to local residents and ramblers.
* This is the only proposed site within a high- risk flood area. Flood risk would be exacerbated by removing ancient drainage ditches and soak away land.
* No information provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water table/supply and water quality.
* At this current time, no restoration plan has been proposed. This is important as many previous extraction sites have been left in poor or dangerous condition.

Infrastructure objections,
* The road system is classified as rural with its surface struggling and in poor condition generally.
* Existing roads are unsuitable for HGV's and plant access. Reflecting this RAF traffic is prohibited from the village.
* Increased traffic volume on A47 and A10 will impact negatively on already busy roads.
Economic objections,
* No proposed benefits to either village.
* No additional jobs for local residents.
* Reduction in house price values. Creation of "trapped "residents unable to sell their houses.
* Potential impact on household insurance due to increased flood risk.
Historical buildings,
* Pentney Abbey, Nar Bone Mill are sites of historical interest and must be protected from unwanted disturbances if there are to remain preserved for future generations.

Health objections,
* There is higher than national average of Lung related conditions (Including COPD, Emphysema and Asthma) in these communities. Exposure to pollutants and increased silica dust exposure will have a significant impact on their health.
* Not all dust is visible! Long term exposure (10-20 years) to the minute Silica dust particles carries a risk of Siliceous.
* Loss of public rights of way to access the Nar valley will impact negatively on physical and mental wellbeing.
* Increased stress and anxiety regarding, noise and pollution will have a detrimental effect on overall health.

Please take these above points as my formal objection to this proposed silica sand quarry site SIL 02

I am sure Norfolk county council will be able to find an alternative site that will not impact so negatively on the community and environment as proposed site SIL 02 does.

Object

Representation ID: 92151

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Dr Patricia Harris

There are a number of areas within the site assessment which are undeveloped and there has been a lack of transparency around the consultation process which will have resulted in many residents being unable to make an informed contribution. The following need to be addressed.

1. advertised consultation deadline stated was incorrect (evidence can be provided on request that the advertised deadline was 4 days later (17/08/18) than the actual deadline of 13/08/18, unfortunately the current web based response system does not allow for evidence to be attached). This should be compensated by an extended consultation deadline. Additionally, the contributors to the site assessment document are unclear. This lack of transparency also raises questions around the fairness and trustworthiness of the process, and therefore the site assessment document, and should be investigated.

2. no evidence was provided in the site assessment document that 'even without mitigation, adverse dust impacts from sand extraction sites are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generating activities' (see amenity sub-section). The raised public health and river siltation risk should be outlined explicitly within the site assessment document and therefore mitigation addressed in any subsequent application stages.

3. modification to PRoW impacts on daily living and quality of life of all residents in the area as this is a well used outdoor space providing boundless benefits to local people. Even if right of way to the river is maintained the public will have to enter a zone of increased risk to respiratory and auditory health and the mental health benefit of the current tranquil setting will be lost. Therefore, the public health impact should be outlined explicitly within the site assessment document and therefore mitigation addressed in any subsequent application stages.

4. Noise pollution is under-addressed within the site assessment document. It would be unfair to residents (human and fauna) to have another noise pollutant in the area and therefore mitigation must be addressed in any subsequent application stages.

5. The site assessment document does not adequately address the cumulative impact of all proposed extraction on the river Nar. Independent surveys and prediction modelling must be used to ascertain the combined impact of silica sand extraction along with the sand a gravel extraction proposed in 'MIN 19 and MIN 205 - land north of river Nar, Pentney'.

6. High risk of damage to the river Nar's chalk bed is under-addressed in the site assessment document. The river is of great importance and has already been classified as being in only 'moderate condition' (Environment Agency) due to current land uses of the surrounding area. Any mitigating scheme provided within subsequent application processes needs to specifically address how the river's integrity will be maintained and how the target of 'good condition', set by the Environment Agency for 2027, will be achieved.

7. Lack of explicate involvement of statutory bodies in the site assessment document. The Environment Agency and organisations such as the Rivers Trust must be consulted. Any mitigating scheme provided within subsequent application stages can be assumed to be un-evidenced and thus unacceptable unless these agencies are involved.

Object

Representation ID: 92152

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Thomas Pringle

There are a number of areas within the site assessment which are undeveloped and there has been a lack of transparency around the consultation process which will have resulted in many residents being unable to make an informed contribution. The following need to be addressed.

1. advertised consultation deadline stated was incorrect (evidence can be provided on request that the advertised deadline was 4 days later (17/08/18) than the actual deadline of 13/08/18, unfortunately the current web based response system does not allow for evidence to be attached). This should be compensated by an extended consultation deadline. Additionally, the contributors to the site assessment document are unclear. This lack of transparency also raises questions around the fairness and trustworthiness of the process, and therefore the site assessment document, and should be investigated.

2. no evidence was provided in the site assessment document that 'even without mitigation, adverse dust impacts from sand extraction sites are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generating activities' (see amenity sub-section). The raised public health and river siltation risk should be outlined explicitly within the site assessment document and therefore mitigation addressed in any subsequent application stages.

3. modification to PRoW impacts on daily living and quality of life of all residents in the area as this is a well used outdoor space providing boundless benefits to local people. Even if right of way to the river is maintained the public will have to enter a zone of increased risk to respiratory and auditory health and the mental health benefit of the current tranquil setting will be lost. Therefore, the public health impact should be outlined explicitly within the site assessment document and therefore mitigation addressed in any subsequent application stages.

4. Noise pollution is under-addressed within the site assessment document. It would be unfair to residents (human and fauna) to have another noise pollutant in the area and therefore mitigation must be addressed in any subsequent application stages.

5. The site assessment document does not adequately address the cumulative impact of all proposed extraction on the river Nar. Independent surveys and prediction modelling must be used to ascertain the combined impact of silica sand extraction along with the sand a gravel extraction proposed in 'MIN 19 and MIN 205 - land north of river Nar, Pentney'.

6. High risk of damage to the river Nar's chalk bed is under-addressed in the site assessment document. The river is of great importance and has already been classified as being in only 'moderate condition' (Environment Agency) due to current land uses of the surrounding area. Any mitigating scheme provided within subsequent application processes needs to specifically address how the river's integrity will be maintained and how the target of 'good condition', set by the Environment Agency for 2027, will be achieved.

7. Lack of explicate involvement of statutory bodies in the site assessment document. The Environment Agency and organisations such as the Rivers Trust must be consulted. Any mitigating scheme provided within subsequent application stages can be assumed to be un-evidenced and thus unacceptable unless these agencies are involved.

Summary:
A number of areas within the site assessment document are undeveloped including: a lack of evidence around the impact of dust from extraction, non-reporting of the Environment Agency's targets for River Nar's condition, under-assessment of the impact on public health and a lack of consideration for the cumulative effects of multiple extractions around the River Nar. There has also been a lack of transparency around the consultation process, including inaccurate deadline dates being advertised, which will have resulted in many residents being unable to make an informed contribution. On these grounds I must object to the proposed plans.

Object

Representation ID: 92160

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr John Woods

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic ' best case scenario ' which downplays the negative impact on the residents wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own Statement of Community Involvement. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health / Safety & Environment

a) Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right of life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 ( respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence ), and Protocol 1 ( right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
b) Prolonged exposure to Silica dust Present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
c) No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
d) No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
e) This is the only proposal. Within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.

Economic.

a) No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
b) No additional job creation.
c) Reduction in house values.
d) Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
e) Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
f) Creation of trapped residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.

Local Infrastructure

a) Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
b) Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic ( A47 & A10 ).
c) No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipelines between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.

Ecology

a) Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
a1) Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Mayfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper.
a2) Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nighjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
b) Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and Core River Valley.
c) River Nar is a Chalk Steam where Brown Trout Breed.
d) No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
e) Detrimental impact on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
f) No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.

Landscape

a) Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
a1) Bunds of screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
a1) Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
b) Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
c) Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
d) Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
e) Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monuments Penney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
f) No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.

Archaeology

a) This areas is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
b) Close proximity to Penney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and well-being for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92161

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Alan Flatt

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic ' best case scenario ' which downplays the negative impact on the residents wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own Statement of Community Involvement. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health / Safety & Environment

a) Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right of life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 ( respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence ), and Protocol 1 ( right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
b) Prolonged exposure to Silica dust Present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
c) No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
d) No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
e) This is the only proposal. Within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.

Economic.

a) No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
b) No additional job creation.
c) Reduction in house values.
d) Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
e) Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
f) Creation of trapped residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.

Local Infrastructure

a) Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
b) Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic ( A47 & A10 ).
c) No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipelines between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.

Ecology

a) Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
a1) Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Mayfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper.
a2) Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nighjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
b) Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and Core River Valley.
c) River Nar is a Chalk Steam where Brown Trout Breed.
d) No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
e) Detrimental impact on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
f) No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.

Landscape

a) Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
a1) Bunds of screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
a1) Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
b) Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
c) Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
d) Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
e) Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monuments Penney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
f) No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.

Archaeology

a) This areas is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
b) Close proximity to Penney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and well-being for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92163

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Simon Gibbs

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I appreciate the commercial need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to point out that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic ' best case scenario ' which downplays the negative impact on the residents wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own Statement of Community Involvement. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response before the deadline.

I list below in detail the grounds for my objection but would also like to make a personal statement that I do not believe this rural community should be subjected to further development with the increase in traffic, noise and pollution that this would entail. The area affected is a precious natural resource that is much used and valued by the whole village and neighbouring communities.

Health / Safety & Environment

a) Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right of life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 ( respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence ), and Protocol 1 ( right to peaceful enjoyment of one's property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
b) Prolonged exposure to Silica dust presents significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
c) No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
d) No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
e) This is the only proposal within the Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.

Economic.

a) No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
b) No additional job creation.
c) Reduction in house values.
d) Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
e) Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
f) Creation of trapped residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.

Local Infrastructure

a) Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are nonetheless prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
b) Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10 ).
c) No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipelines between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.

Ecology

a) Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
a1) Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Mayfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper.
a2) Birds on the conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
b) Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River Valley.
d) No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
e) Detrimental impact on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
f) No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.

Landscape

a) Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape. Bunds or screening would be both ineffective and intrusive in their own right. The proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
b) Prevailing North and West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
c) Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
d) Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the permitted 100 metres) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
e) Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monuments Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
f) No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.

Archaeology

a) This areas is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
b) Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.

In conclusion, there is nothing in this proposal which addresses residents' concerns about the devastating and profound impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and well-being for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92164

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Martin Wickham

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health/Safety & Environment

* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches
Economic

* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
* No additional job creation
* Reduction in house values
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market
Local Infrastructure

* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers
Ecology

* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
* Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
* Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate
Landscape

* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape
* Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right
* Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future
Archaeology

* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92165

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Gordon Johnson

Please accept this letter as a formal objection to the above.
Unfortunately not time to post due to deadline which Graham Middleton managed to get extended due to residents NOT being informed by parish council.

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? I have lost faith in the Parish Council and wish a timeline explanation of actions and reasons they did not see fit to advise residents.

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 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

Object

Representation ID: 92167

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Vikki Edwards

Please accept this letter as a formal objection to the above.
Unfortunately not time to post due to deadline which Graham Middleton managed to get extended due to residents NOT being informed by parish council.

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? I have lost faith in the Parish Council and wish a timeline explanation of actions and reasons they did not see fit to advise residents.

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 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

Object

Representation ID: 92171

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Ms J Matthews

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own Statement of Community Involvement. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health / Safety & Environment

a) Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right of life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 ( respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence ), and Protocol 1 ( right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
b) Prolonged exposure to Silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
c) No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
d) No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
e) This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.

Economic.

a) No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
b) No additional job creation.
c) Reduction in house values.
d) Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
e) Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
f) Creation of trapped residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.

Local Infrastructure

a) Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
b) Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10 ).
c) No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipelines between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.

Ecology

a) Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
a1) Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Mayfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper.
a2) Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
b) Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and Core River Valley.
d) No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
e) Detrimental impact on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
f) No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.

Landscape

a) Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
a1) Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
a1) Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
b) Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
c) Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
d) Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
e) Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monuments Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
f) No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.

Archaeology

a) This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
b) Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92173

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Angela Walton

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own Statement of Community Involvement. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health / Safety & Environment

a) Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right of life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 ( respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence ), and Protocol 1 ( right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
b) Prolonged exposure to Silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
c) No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
d) No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
e) This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.

Economic.

a) No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
b) No additional job creation.
c) Reduction in house values.
d) Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
e) Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
f) Creation of trapped residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.

Local Infrastructure

a) Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
b) Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10 ).
c) No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipelines between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.

Ecology

a) Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
a1) Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Mayfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper.
a2) Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
b) Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and Core River Valley.
d) No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
e) Detrimental impact on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
f) No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.

Landscape

a) Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
a1) Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
a1) Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
b) Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
c) Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
d) Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
e) Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monuments Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
f) No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.

Archaeology

a) This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
b) Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92174

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Ken Slade

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health/Safet Environment

* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.

* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics

* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality

* No restriction on site working hours is proposed

* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches

Economic

* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham

* No additional job creation

* Reduction in house values

* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk

* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way

* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market

Local Infrastructure

* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.

* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10)

* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers

Ecology

* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
o Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
o Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge

* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley

* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction

* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites

* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate

Landscape

* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long- reaching views across the fen landscape
o Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right
o Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape

* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health

* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land

* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists

* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets

* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future

Archaeology

* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project

* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92176

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Kevin Walton

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own Statement of Community Involvement. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health / Safety & Environment

a) Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right of life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 ( respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence ), and Protocol 1 ( right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
b) Prolonged exposure to Silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
c) No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
d) No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
e) This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.

Economic.

a) No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
b) No additional job creation.
c) Reduction in house values.
d) Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
e) Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
f) Creation of trapped residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.

Local Infrastructure

a) Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
b) Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10 ).
c) No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipelines between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.

Ecology

a) Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
a1) Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Mayfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper.
a2) Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
b) Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and Core River Valley.
d) No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
e) Detrimental impact on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
f) No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.

Landscape

a) Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
a1) Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
a1) Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
b) Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
c) Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
d) Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
e) Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monuments Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
f) No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.

Archaeology

a) This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
b) Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92177

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Sharon Ludford

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

My objection is due to a range of issues:

Health and Safety
- Noise, light and dust pollution from extraction which we as local residents will experience. I believe this will affect our health, well being and quality of life.
- We are all being encouraged to walk, run and exercise for our health and wellbeing, with particular reference to the "obesity crisis" and concerns about heart disease, so our local footpaths and countryside should be protected for the local community.

Environment
- The proposed site is part of a rural setting much loved and valued by my family, members of the local community and visitors to the area
- Shouldham Warren is a much used facility and the surrounding countryside is part of the rural setting
- It is a habitat for a wide range of flora and fauna and deserves protection not destruction

Community
- As a rural village, Marham already has its challenges with the added traffic, noise, and population linked to the RAF base. As residents and a community we do not need a development of this magnitude on our doorstep.

Other concerns:
Having knowledge of the health and safety, and anti-social behaviour issues at the ex Silica site Bawsey/Leziate, I am very concerned about the long term result of the extraction if planning permission is granted.

In conclusion, I feel that the health and well being of the local residents should take precedence in this matter.

Object

Representation ID: 92178

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Saunders

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own Statement of Community Involvement. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health / Safety & Environment

a) Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right of life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 ( respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence ), and Protocol 1 ( right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
b) Prolonged exposure to Silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
c) No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
d) No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
e) This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.

Economic.

a) No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
b) No additional job creation.
c) Reduction in house values.
d) Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
e) Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
f) Creation of trapped residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.

Local Infrastructure

a) Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
b) Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10 ).
c) No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipelines between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.

Ecology

a) Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
a1) Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Mayfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper.
a2) Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
b) Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and Core River Valley.
d) No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
e) Detrimental impact on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
f) No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.

Landscape

a) Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
a1) Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
a1) Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
b) Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
c) Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
d) Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
e) Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monuments Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
f) No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.

Archaeology

a) This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
b) Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92179

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Colin Buttery

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand
extraction.
I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.
I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in the development.
I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.
In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health/Safety & Environment
* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks
are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches

Economic
* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
* No additional job creation
* Reduction in house values
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing
market
Local Infrastructure
* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site
and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers
Ecology
* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
o Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper,
Dingy Skipper
o Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet,
Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey
Partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to
remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate
Landscape
* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long- reaching views across the fen landscape
o Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right
o Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local
landscape
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns
and impact on health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated
100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are
extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled
monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for
Landfill in the future

Archaeology
* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, I would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92180

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Nikki Goble

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health/Safety & Environment

* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches
Economic

* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
* No additional job creation
* Reduction in house values
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market
Local Infrastructure

* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers
Ecology

* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
* Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
* Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate
Landscape

* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape
* Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right
* Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future
Archaeology

* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92181

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Edna Hesselworth

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health/Safety & Environment

* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches
Economic

* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
* No additional job creation
* Reduction in house values
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market
Local Infrastructure

* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers
Ecology

* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
* Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
* Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate
Landscape

* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape
* Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right
* Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future
Archaeology

* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92182

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Richard Hallett

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health/Safety & Environment

* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches
Economic

* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
* No additional job creation
* Reduction in house values
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market
Local Infrastructure

* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers
Ecology

* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
* Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
* Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate
Landscape

* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape
* Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right
* Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future
Archaeology

* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92183

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Buttery

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand
extraction.
I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.
I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in the development.
I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.
In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:


Health/Safety & Environment
* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks
are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches

Economic
* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
* No additional job creation
* Reduction in house values
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing
market
Local Infrastructure
* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site
and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers
Ecology
* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
o Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper,
Dingy Skipper
o Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet,
Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey
Partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to
remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate
Landscape
* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long- reaching views across the fen landscape
o Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right
o Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local
landscape
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns
and impact on health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated
100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are
extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled
monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for
Landfill in the future


Archaeology
* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.


If you require any clarification of the points raised, I would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92184

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Nathan Goble

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health/Safety & Environment

* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches
Economic

* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
* No additional job creation
* Reduction in house values
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market
Local Infrastructure

* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers
Ecology

* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
* Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
* Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate
Landscape

* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape
* Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right
* Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future
Archaeology

* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92185

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Colin Owen

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health/Safety & Environment

* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches
Economic

* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
* No additional job creation
* Reduction in house values
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market
Local Infrastructure

* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers
Ecology

* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
* Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
* Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate
Landscape

* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape
* Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right
* Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future
Archaeology

* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92186

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr A Owen

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health/Safety & Environment

* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches
Economic

* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
* No additional job creation
* Reduction in house values
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market
Local Infrastructure

* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers
Ecology

* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
* Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
* Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate
Landscape

* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape
* Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right
* Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future
Archaeology

* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92187

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Brian Ferguson

Preferred Area for Silica Sand Extraction SIL02 and AOS E

I wish to lodge my strong objection to the sites mentioned above as preferred areas for silica sand extraction. I shall try to be brief.

Although it is my understanding that many aspects will fall for careful consideration and critical scrutiny, including cultural/ archaeological impact, environmental aspects, water issues (including the flood plain element), diversion of an ancient footpath from Marham to Pentney, trodden for a thousand years, noise, dust and road safety implications and the diminution in quality of life for all residents of Marham and Shouldham....despite this future analysis, I am very strongly of the opinion that these sites should not designated preferred areas.

My thinking is as follows. The sites are appx 1.5/2.5miles from RAF Marham. It is universally accepted that this base is absolutely pivotal in every sense, not least because of the streamlining of national defence structures, including closure of other RAF bases. If denuclearization were probable or likely, then the decision about preferred sites would be marginal at best. Sadly this is not the case and the world remains a very, very dangerous place, especially on Europe's eastern borders. It follows that our whole nation, not just Marham and Shouldham, relies upon the brave men and women based at RAF Marham. Indeed, it is both fair and true to say that it is not just our nation whom they safeguard, but also Europe/ EU and our NATO allies (which ironically includes Belgium!)

So to take even the slightest risk to adversely affect RAF Marham seems monumentally crass. This, of course, cuts no ice with either Sibelco or the owners of the land/ fen in question to whom money/ profit are far more important than security and defence. Shame on them !

On a humanitarian level, there are many retired RAF pensioners and staff who live in Marham and Shouldham. Is this a just way of rewarding their loyal service? Diminution of property value and increasing lifestyle anxiety are simply not right. And the families of serving RAF personnel already have unimaginable stress when loved ones are away on duty. Even the notion of awarding preferred status would be a real kick in the teeth for them.

For these fundamental reasons ie national/ regional security and the impact on the lives of our brave men and women and their families, these sites should most definitely not be awarded preferred status.

Object

Representation ID: 92189

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Mr A Bartholomew

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own Statement of Community Involvement. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health / Safety & Environment

a) Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right of life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 ( respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence ), and Protocol 1 ( right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
b) Prolonged exposure to Silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
c) No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
d) No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
e) This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.

Economic.

a) No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
b) No additional job creation.
c) Reduction in house values.
d) Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
e) Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
f) Creation of trapped residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.

Local Infrastructure

a) Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
b) Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10 ).
c) No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipelines between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.

Ecology

a) Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
a1) Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Mayfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper.
a2) Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
b) Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and Core River Valley.
d) No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
e) Detrimental impact on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
f) No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.

Landscape

a) Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
a1) Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
a1) Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
b) Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
c) Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
d) Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
e) Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monuments Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
f) No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.

Archaeology

a) This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
b) Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92190

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Rebecca Bartholomew

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own Statement of Community Involvement. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health / Safety & Environment

a) Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right of life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 ( respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence ), and Protocol 1 ( right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
b) Prolonged exposure to Silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
c) No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
d) No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
e) This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.

Economic.

a) No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
b) No additional job creation.
c) Reduction in house values.
d) Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
e) Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
f) Creation of trapped residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.

Local Infrastructure

a) Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
b) Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10 ).
c) No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipelines between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.

Ecology

a) Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
a1) Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Mayfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper.
a2) Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
b) Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and Core River Valley.
d) No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
e) Detrimental impact on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
f) No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.

Landscape

a) Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
a1) Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
a1) Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
b) Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
c) Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
d) Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
e) Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monuments Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
f) No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.

Archaeology

a) This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
b) Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Representation ID: 92192

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Kay Tuffin

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size and time scales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk County Council's own Statement of Community Involvement. Residents were completely unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to prepare a response ahead of the deadline.

In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health / Safety & Environment

a) Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right of life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 ( respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence ), and Protocol 1 ( right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
b) Prolonged exposure to Silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
c) No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
d) No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
e) This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.

Economic.

a) No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
b) No additional job creation.
c) Reduction in house values.
d) Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
e) Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
f) Creation of trapped residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.

Local Infrastructure

a) Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
b) Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10 ).
c) No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipelines between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.

Ecology

a) Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
a1) Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Mayfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper.
a2) Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
b) Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and Core River Valley.
d) No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
e) Detrimental impact on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
f) No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.

Landscape

a) Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
a1) Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
a1) Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
b) Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
c) Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
d) Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
e) Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monuments Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
f) No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.

Archaeology

a) This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
b) Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for leisure or ecological benefit.

If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.