Question 74: Proposed site SIL 02 (land at Shouldham and Marham)
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92195
Received: 15/08/2018
Respondent: Mr & Mrs D & J Bland
Number of people: 2
As residents of Shouldham, we were very surprised to receive details from an anonymous source of the proposed excavation of silica sand at a site between Shouldham and Marham.
We attended the meeting of Parish Councillors held at Shouldham on Monday evening, 6 August to listen to details of the proposed scheme. It was also noted that there was no representation from the Council, despite this proposal being centrally in your area.
It was also confirmed that despite this proposal being "on the table" with various bodies for some time, the Parish Councillors of both Shouldham and Marham, decided that it was not worthy of notification to the residents of the two villagers. We were also informed that there were 5 days outstanding to submit any objections against the scheme.
This proposed excavation site is totally inappropriate for a rural area, that lacks infrastructure. The mess, noise, tipper trucks, upheaval and general scars on the countryside can be seen in and around the many sand / gravel quarries already operating in West Norfolk. There are not even single carriageway roads in the site area, with single tracks currently used by the farmers. The method proposed at the meeting for moving raw material, by pipelines, across country to Leziate is totally not in keeping with a very rural location. No major roads, railways or waterways exist locally to provide methods for transportation, as currently silica is moved from Leziate by trains.
There are also major health concerns, with large 24/7 industrial operations, of this nature, with dust problems, COPD and silicosis particularly prevalent.
The residents should have been afforded the courtesy of being notified earlier of this proposed excavation and would expect that prompt and ongoing communications would be held with both villagers as the feeling is very high, fuelled particularly by the lack of notification from the Parish Councils.
We certainly object to this proposal as totally inappropriate, and would expect updates to all affected, together with an impact statement and schedule of actions and timings, particularly relevant as the local farmers have already given their approvals for this extraction scheme.
As residents of Shouldham, we were very surprised to receive details from an anonymous source of the proposed excavation of silica sand at a site between Shouldham and Marham.
We attended the meeting of Parish Councillors held at Shouldham on Monday evening, 6 August to listen to details of the proposed scheme. It was also noted that there was no representation from the Council, despite this proposal being centrally in your area.
It was also confirmed that despite this proposal being "on the table" with various bodies for some time, the Parish Councillors of both Shouldham and Marham, decided that it was not worthy of notification to the residents of the two villagers. We were also informed that there were 5 days outstanding to submit any objections against the scheme.
This proposed excavation site is totally inappropriate for a rural area, that lacks infrastructure. The mess, noise, tipper trucks, upheaval and general scars on the countryside can be seen in and around the many sand / gravel quarries already operating in West Norfolk. There are not even single carriageway roads in the site area, with single tracks currently used by the farmers. The method proposed at the meeting for moving raw material, by pipelines, across country to Leziate is totally not in keeping with a very rural location. No major roads, railways or waterways exist locally to provide methods for transportation, as currently silica is moved from Leziate by trains.
There are also major health concerns, with large 24/7 industrial operations, of this nature, with dust problems, COPD and silicosis particularly prevalent.
The residents should have been afforded the courtesy of being notified earlier of this proposed excavation and would expect that prompt and ongoing communications would be held with both villagers as the feeling is very high, fuelled particularly by the lack of notification from the Parish Councils.
We certainly object to this proposal as totally inappropriate, and would expect updates to all affected, together with an impact statement and schedule of actions and timings, particularly relevant as the local farmers have already given their approvals for this extraction scheme.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92196
Received: 15/08/2018
Respondent: Mr Paul Dixon
I have made the following representation on the appropriate NCC Consultation page
within their guidelines on brevity.
"Shouldham/Marham proposal would require diversion of PRoW FP9. This is the only direct route to the river from the village and if removed would leave just the path via Marham Fen, or a route through Shouldham Warren. Both at unacceptable distances from FP9 and this part of the village. FP9 diversion not to be greater than 100m at any point from present position"
Perhaps however you would allow me to expand and clarify.
Between Narborough and Blackborough End, New Road, there are only two places where the River Nar can be crossed, the Eastgate Farm and Pentney Abbey bridges.
Access to the former is through Marham Fen and the latter by the footpath that runs directly down to the river from the village, at the end of Fen Lane, through the proposed site.
The quarry will therefore cut off this part of Marham from the only crossing point that is on the River Nar circular route, the footpath continues on the north side of the river so the footbridge at Pentney is an essential feature of the walk.
From the plans submitted so far there is no satisfactory diversion.
I have made the following representation on the appropriate NCC Consultation page
within their guidelines on brevity.
"Shouldham/Marham proposal would require diversion of PRoW FP9. This is the only direct route to the river from the village and if removed would leave just the path via Marham Fen, or a route through Shouldham Warren. Both at unacceptable distances from FP9 and this part of the village. FP9 diversion not to be greater than 100m at any point from present position"
Perhaps however you would allow me to expand and clarify.
Between Narborough and Blackborough End, New Road, there are only two places where the River Nar
can be crossed, the Eastgate Farm and Pentney Abbey bridges.
Access to the former is through Marham Fen and the latter by the footpath that runs directly down to the
river from the village, at the end of Fen Lane, through the proposed site.
The quarry will therefore cut off this part of Marham from the only crossing point that is on the River Nar
circular route, the footpath continues on the north side of the river so the footbridge at Pentney is an essential feature of the walk.
From the plans submitted so far there is no satisfactory diversion.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92197
Received: 15/08/2018
Respondent: Mrs Victoria 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.
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
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92199
Received: 15/08/2018
Respondent: Mrs Jane Bradley
Re: Proposed Silica Sand Extraction Sites SIL 02 and AOS E
I wish to object unreservedly regarding the proposal for the above sites for the extraction of silica sand. I appreciate that there will be a need for silica sand in the future, but I firmly believe that this would have a devastating effect, not only on the villages of Marham and Shouldham, but also, on the surrounding environment including the villages of Pentney, Wormegay, Fincham and Narborough. My objections are based on the following grounds:
Health, Safety and Environment:
Firstly, I believe the Sibelco representative to be totally wrong when he stated at a recent meeting that the use of bunding or barriers will ensure that Marham village will not be affected by noise, dust or light from the excavation. I fail to see how this could possibly be effective as Marham is located on an elevated site, so what is now a stunning view of fenland, fields and forest will be permanently destroyed.
The continual 'hum', (the word used by the Sibelco representative) will be totally unacceptable for people who have chosen to live in a rural location. Although residents already experience some aircraft noise from RAF Marham, this only occurs in short bursts and on an irregular basis. Light pollution will also have a disastrous effect on the bats and other nocturnal wildlife which live here and the absolute darkness is another feature enjoyed by many people in the village.
It is a well-known fact that silica dust has close links to silicosis and other respiratory diseases which, therefore, violates residents' rights (European Convention on Human Rights, (Article 2) and there are many particularly vulnerable people residing in these villages.
Ecology: The destruction of such a vast area of fen and agricultural land, would have a devastating effect on the wildlife here at present. This includes voles, newts, moths, damselflies, and many species of birds, including buzzards, red kite and owls. With the diminishing numbers of many species, we cannot afford to destroy this valuable habitat.
Similarly, the River Nar is of significant global importance as a chalk stream supporting a diversity of wildlife. It is a designated SSSI and I fail to see how any restoration could possibly remedy the detrimental impact caused.
Landscape and Amenities: This area is used frequently by children from the two local schools in their studies of wildlife, rivers and history. Should this proposal go ahead, the south-western end of Marham village would become completely cut off from the river Nar, making it impossible for children to fulfil these studies. Currently, there is a huge initiative to encourage both children and adults to learn about their environment and to understand the benefits to their mental health, well-being, etc., by being able to enjoy fresh air and pleasant scenery.
The proposed area also includes many ancient footpaths which are used extensively by both residents and people from further afield. These would, of course, be permanently destroyed.
With no proposed route, as yet, for the option of piping the sand to Leziate, one wonders how many other people's lives will be affected by this proposal.
Benefits to the villages:
I cannot see any.
Instead, I see a bleak future of: reduction in house values making it difficult for residents to move, a loss of open space to enjoy, continual pollution by noise, light and dust and a depressing legacy for our children and grandchildren.
In conclusion, I am strongly of the opinion that these proposals have given no consideration to the resulting effects on the lives of the current residents and the lives of the population in the future.
Re: Proposed Silica Sand Extraction Sites SIL 02 and AOS E
I wish to object unreservedly regarding the proposal for the above sites for the extraction of silica sand. I appreciate that there will be a need for silica sand in the future, but I firmly believe that this would have a devastating effect, not only on the villages of Marham and Shouldham, but also, on the surrounding environment including the villages of Pentney, Wormegay, Fincham and Narborough. My objections are based on the following grounds:
Health, Safety and Environment:
Firstly, I believe the Sibelco representative to be totally wrong when he stated at a recent meeting that the use of bunding or barriers will ensure that Marham village will not be affected by noise, dust or light from the excavation. I fail to see how this could possibly be effective as Marham is located on an elevated site, so what is now a stunning view of fenland, fields and forest will be permanently destroyed.
The continual 'hum', (the word used by the Sibelco representative) will be totally unacceptable for people who have chosen to live in a rural location. Although residents already experience some aircraft noise from RAF Marham, this only occurs in short bursts and on an irregular basis. Light pollution will also have a disastrous effect on the bats and other nocturnal wildlife which live here and the absolute darkness is another feature enjoyed by many people in the village.
It is a well-known fact that silica dust has close links to silicosis and other respiratory diseases which, therefore, violates residents' rights (European Convention on Human Rights, (Article 2) and there are many particularly vulnerable people residing in these villages.
Ecology: The destruction of such a vast area of fen and agricultural land, would have a devastating effect on the wildlife here at present. This includes voles, newts, moths, damselflies, and many species of birds, including buzzards, red kite and owls. With the diminishing numbers of many species, we cannot afford to destroy this valuable habitat.
Similarly, the River Nar is of significant global importance as a chalk stream supporting a diversity of wildlife. It is a designated SSSI and I fail to see how any restoration could possibly remedy the detrimental impact caused.
Landscape and Amenities: This area is used frequently by children from the two local schools in their studies of wildlife, rivers and history. Should this proposal go ahead, the south-western end of Marham village would become completely cut off from the river Nar, making it impossible for children to fulfil these studies. Currently, there is a huge initiative to encourage both children and adults to learn about their environment and to understand the benefits to their mental health, well-being, etc., by being able to enjoy fresh air and pleasant scenery.
The proposed area also includes many ancient footpaths which are used extensively by both residents and people from further afield. These would, of course, be permanently destroyed.
With no proposed route, as yet, for the option of piping the sand to Leziate, one wonders how many other people's lives will be affected by this proposal.
Benefits to the villages:
I cannot see any.
Instead, I see a bleak future of: reduction in house values making it difficult for residents to move, a loss of open space to enjoy, continual pollution by noise, light and dust and a depressing legacy for our children and grandchildren.
In conclusion, I am strongly of the opinion that these proposals have given no consideration to the resulting effects on the lives of the current residents and the lives of the population in the future.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92201
Received: 15/08/2018
Respondent: Miss L Tanner
RE: PROPOSED SITE SIL 02 AS A PREFERRED AREA FOR SILICA SAND EXTRACTION
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most other residents, was totally unaware or advised of such a scheme until a neighbour informed me of it a few days ago. Apparently only 10 letters were sent out to properties closest to the site. It now also appears that this plan has been discussed by the county council for over three years. Why have we not been made aware of this plan earlier?
Fortunately a meeting was held by Shouldham Parish Council 6th August 2018 and the following key points were identified;
* If approved, the first phase of the project will involve the stripping of all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields allowing access to the sand below. This will involve the use of heavy duty earth moving equipment.
* The second phase will involve the flooding of the land and dredging on the sand, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No restriction on working hours has been planned. There are also concerns as this type of dredging has not been carried out by Sibelco in the UK before.
* Planned start date 2026 for a period in excess of 20 years.
The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues
a. Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated.
b. The amount of soil and clay to be removed to access the sand is significant and not just a simple surface scrape.
c. The land in question is high quality agricultural land. The Carbon footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Plants and agricultural farmland.
d. Due to the depth of the dig and volume of material to be removed it is doubtful if the site will ever be returned to agricultural land.
e. Any screening or Bunding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?
f. Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
g. Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
I. Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
II. Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
2. Health and safety
a. The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues. The wind typically blows from this site directly towards Marham. Under these circumstances the 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.
b. 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.
The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm
Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. Heavy and prolonged exposure to RCS can cause lung cancer and other serious respiratory diseases. HSE commissioned estimates it was responsible for the death of over 500 construction workers in 2005. In addition to the risks from lung cancer, silica is also linked to other serious lung diseases:
* Silicosis can cause severe breathing problems and increases the risk of lung infections. Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS over many years, but extremely high exposures can cause acute silicosis more quickly.
* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung diseases including bronchitis and emphysema. It results in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death.
The NHS website also states;
www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/
Silicosis
Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years.
Silica is a substance naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Working with these materials can create a very fine dust that can be easily inhaled.
Once inside the lungs, the dust particles are attacked by the immune system.
This causes swelling (inflammation) and gradually leads to areas of hardened and scarred lung tissue (fibrosis). Lung tissue that's scarred in this way doesn't function properly.
People who work in the following industries are particularly at risk:
* stone masonry and stone cutting - especially with sandstone
* construction and demolition - as a result of exposure to concrete and paving materials
* pottery, ceramics and glass manufacturing
* mining and quarrying
* sand blasting
3. Noise, dust and light pollution
a. The area under consideration is extremely flat with no natural noise, light or dust barriers. Therefore screening will be ineffective and the entire site will be visible to the majority of the residents of Marham. There is no Bunding large enough to provide a barrier against the noise and light pollution this work will cause. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable.
4. Access to site
a. The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing a pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping.
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.
b. Any Bunding and piles of surface soil and clay will only reduce the natural flow of water and increase the risk of flooding further.
c. 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.
6. Increased risk of Bird Strikes on aircraft
a. 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. In accordance with government guidelines there should be a 13km radius from the centre point of RAF Marham designated as a safeguarding area against bird strike, industrial lighting etc. This area is prone to flooding and will flood once material is extracted. The flooding of the area either during the dredging process or on completion of the sand removal is of concern as this will increase the number of birds and wild fowl resulting in potential bird strikes on aircraft in close proximity to RAF Marham.
7. 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.
c. No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
8. Property Value
a. This will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least 28 years. Who wants to live near and look at a Silica sand extraction plant that will be in opened from 2026 and in operation for at least 20 years, probably much longer?
b. Potential increase on home insurance due to increased flood risk
Please accept the above points as part of our formal objection to the planned sand extraction at Site SIL 02, Marham and Shouldham,
RE: PROPOSED SITE SIL 02 AS A PREFERRED AREA FOR SILICA SAND EXTRACTION
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most other residents, was totally unaware or advised of such a scheme until a neighbour informed me of it a few days ago. Apparently only 10 letters were sent out to properties closest to the site. It now also appears that this plan has been discussed by the county council for over three years. Why have we not been made aware of this plan earlier?
Fortunately a meeting was held by Shouldham Parish Council 6th August 2018 and the following key points were identified;
* If approved, the first phase of the project will involve the stripping of all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields allowing access to the sand below. This will involve the use of heavy duty earth moving equipment.
* The second phase will involve the flooding of the land and dredging on the sand, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No restriction on working hours has been planned. There are also concerns as this type of dredging has not been carried out by Sibelco in the UK before.
* Planned start date 2026 for a period in excess of 20 years.
The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues
a. Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated.
b. The amount of soil and clay to be removed to access the sand is significant and not just a simple surface scrape.
c. The land in question is high quality agricultural land. The Carbon footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Plants and agricultural farmland.
d. Due to the depth of the dig and volume of material to be removed it is doubtful if the site will ever be returned to agricultural land.
e. Any screening or Bunding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?
f. Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
g. Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
I. Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
II. Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
2. Health and safety
a. The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues. The wind typically blows from this site directly towards Marham. Under these circumstances the 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.
b. 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.
The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm
Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. Heavy and prolonged exposure to RCS can cause lung cancer and other serious respiratory diseases. HSE commissioned estimates it was responsible for the death of over 500 construction workers in 2005. In addition to the risks from lung cancer, silica is also linked to other serious lung diseases:
* Silicosis can cause severe breathing problems and increases the risk of lung infections. Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS over many years, but extremely high exposures can cause acute silicosis more quickly.
* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung diseases including bronchitis and emphysema. It results in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death.
The NHS website also states;
www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/
Silicosis
Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years.
Silica is a substance naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Working with these materials can create a very fine dust that can be easily inhaled.
Once inside the lungs, the dust particles are attacked by the immune system.
This causes swelling (inflammation) and gradually leads to areas of hardened and scarred lung tissue (fibrosis). Lung tissue that's scarred in this way doesn't function properly.
People who work in the following industries are particularly at risk:
* stone masonry and stone cutting - especially with sandstone
* construction and demolition - as a result of exposure to concrete and paving materials
* pottery, ceramics and glass manufacturing
* mining and quarrying
* sand blasting
3. Noise, dust and light pollution
a. The area under consideration is extremely flat with no natural noise, light or dust barriers. Therefore screening will be ineffective and the entire site will be visible to the majority of the residents of Marham. There is no Bunding large enough to provide a barrier against the noise and light pollution this work will cause. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable.
4. Access to site
a. The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing a pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping.
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.
b. Any Bunding and piles of surface soil and clay will only reduce the natural flow of water and increase the risk of flooding further.
c. 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.
6. Increased risk of Bird Strikes on aircraft
a. 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. In accordance with government guidelines there should be a 13km radius from the centre point of RAF Marham designated as a safeguarding area against bird strike, industrial lighting etc. This area is prone to flooding and will flood once material is extracted. The flooding of the area either during the dredging process or on completion of the sand removal is of concern as this will increase the number of birds and wild fowl resulting in potential bird strikes on aircraft in close proximity to RAF Marham.
7. 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.
c. No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
8. Property Value
a. This will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least 28 years. Who wants to live near and look at a Silica sand extraction plant that will be in opened from 2026 and in operation for at least 20 years, probably much longer?
b. Potential increase on home insurance due to increased flood risk
Please accept the above points as part of our formal objection to the planned sand extraction at Site SIL 02, Marham and Shouldham,
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92202
Received: 15/08/2018
Respondent: Mr Steve Brewer
Please accept this letter as a formal objection to the progress of the Sibelco sand applications with reference to AOS E - Shouldham & Marham silica sand quarry.
To echo the many valid points already raised in the various letters I have read I would also like to highlight that by allowing this to pass through planning you run a very high risk of damaging Shouldham village and it's representation as a desirable West Norfolk location to live. Of which if you are interested in the growth of this part of Norfolk with in train connections to London, something you must keep in mind!
With the Ofsted outstanding primary school and community ran/owned pub and the increasingly used Warren, Shouldham remains one of a few village locations in West Norfolk that will attract people here to live.
Should you allow the quarry to go ahead oppose to looking at the bigger picture you will personally be damaging the future of this village and the surrounding area.
There are other other locations which I believe to be of less damage to the environment and economics of this part of Norfolk and the International business that Sibelco is can easily source the same sand elsewhere, just not making such profit along the way....
Please consider your final decision carefully.
Please accept this letter as a formal objection to the progress of the Sibelco sand applications with reference to AOS E - Shouldham & Marham silica sand quarry.
To echo the many valid points already raised in the various letters I have read I would also like to highlight that by allowing this to pass through planning you run a very high risk of damaging Shouldham village and it's representation as a desirable West Norfolk location to live. Of which if you are interested in the growth of this part of Norfolk with in train connections to London, something you must keep in mind!
With the Ofsted outstanding primary school and community ran/owned pub and the increasingly used Warren, Shouldham remains one of a few village locations in West Norfolk that will attract people here to live.
Should you allow the quarry to go ahead oppose to looking at the bigger picture you will personally be damaging the future of this village and the surrounding area.
There are other other locations which I believe to be of less damage to the environment and economics of this part of Norfolk and the International business that Sibelco is can easily source the same sand elsewhere, just not making such profit along the way....
Please consider your final decision carefully.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92204
Received: 15/08/2018
Respondent: Mr R Janiszewski
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.
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
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92206
Received: 15/08/2018
Respondent: Ms Christine Wilson-Low
RE: Proposed Sites SIL 02 & AOS E. I.e Shouldham Warren, as a preferred area for Silica Sand Extraction
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed sites shown above, as preferred areas' for silica sand extraction, as well as the disproportionate time limits given to object.
A development of this nature will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.
Shouldham is a thriving village with excellent, involved community, which has spread to Marham, an already established community which is growing all the time.
The proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, concerns that are esculated considering the massive size of this site, and time scales involved in the development.
Please note and record 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.
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/and residents unable to move due to lower market house values.
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way and Shouldham Warren
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
* 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 views across the fen landscape which will be devastated, screening will therefore be ineffective
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact residents and wildlife health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land at a time when we will need our own food supplys.
* 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 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.
This proposal will also affect residents in Pentney, & Narborough, directly ( have they been consulted?) as well as affecting the surrounding areas indirectly, including such groups as Ryston runners, Nordic Walkers, Dog walkers who regularly use the area.
I note that some years ago a report was prepared by the "inspectorate" regarding this issue for the Secretary of State; I therefore ask why it has only recently been brought to our attention?
RE: Proposed Sites SIL 02 & AOS E. I.e Shouldham Warren, as a preferred area for Silica Sand Extraction
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed sites shown above, as preferred areas' for silica sand extraction, as well as the disproportionate time limits given to object.
A development of this nature will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.
Shouldham is a thriving village with excellent, involved community, which has spread to Marham, an already established community which is growing all the time.
The proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, concerns that are esculated considering the massive size of this site, and time scales involved in the development.
Please note and record 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.
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/and residents unable to move due to lower market house values.
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way and Shouldham Warren
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
* 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 views across the fen landscape which will be devastated, screening will therefore be ineffective
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact residents and wildlife health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land at a time when we will need our own food supplys.
* 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 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.
This proposal will also affect residents in Pentney, & Narborough, directly ( have they been consulted?) as well as affecting the surrounding areas indirectly, including such groups as Ryston runners, Nordic Walkers, Dog walkers who regularly use the area.
I note that some years ago a report was prepared by the "inspectorate" regarding this issue for the Secretary of State; I therefore ask why it has only recently been brought to our attention?
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92208
Received: 15/08/2018
Respondent: Ms Sandra Wilson-Low
RE: Proposed Sites SIL 02 & AOS E. I.e Shouldham Warren, as a preferred area for Silica Sand Extraction
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed sites shown above, as preferred areas' for silica sand extraction, as well as the disproportionate time limits given to object.
A development of this nature will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.
Shouldham is a thriving village with excellent, involved community, which has spread to Marham, an already established community which is growing all the time.
The proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, concerns that are esculated considering the massive size of this site, and time scales involved in the development.
Please note and record 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.
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/and residents unable to move due to lower market house values.
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way and Shouldham Warren
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
* 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 views across the fen landscape which will be devastated, screening will therefore be ineffective
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact residents and wildlife health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land at a time when we will need our own food supplys.
* 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 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.
This proposal will also affect residents in Pentney, & Narborough, directly ( have they been consulted?) as well as affecting the surrounding areas indirectly, including such groups as Ryston runners, Nordic Walkers, Dog walkers who regularly use the area.
I note that some years ago a report was prepared by the "inspectorate" regarding this issue for the Secretary of State; I therefore ask why it has only recently been brought to our attention?
RE: Proposed Sites SIL 02 & AOS E. I.e Shouldham Warren, as a preferred area for Silica Sand Extraction
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed sites shown above, as preferred areas' for silica sand extraction, as well as the disproportionate time limits given to object.
A development of this nature will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.
Shouldham is a thriving village with excellent, involved community, which has spread to Marham, an already established community which is growing all the time.
The proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, concerns that are esculated considering the massive size of this site, and time scales involved in the development.
Please note and record 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.
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/and residents unable to move due to lower market house values.
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way and Shouldham Warren
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
* 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 views across the fen landscape which will be devastated, screening will therefore be ineffective
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact residents and wildlife health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land at a time when we will need our own food supplys.
* 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 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.
This proposal will also affect residents in Pentney, & Narborough, directly ( have they been consulted?) as well as affecting the surrounding areas indirectly, including such groups as Ryston runners, Nordic Walkers, Dog walkers who regularly use the area.
I note that some years ago a report was prepared by the "inspectorate" regarding this issue for the Secretary of State; I therefore ask why it has only recently been brought to our attention?
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92209
Received: 15/08/2018
Respondent: Miss E Greene
RE: PROPOSED SITE SIL 02 AS A PREFERRED AREA FOR SILICA SAND EXTRACTION
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most other residents, was totally unaware or advised of such a scheme until a neighbour informed me of it a few days ago. Apparently only 10 letters were sent out to properties closest to the site. It now also appears that this plan has been discussed by the county council for over three years. Why have we not been made aware of this plan earlier?
Fortunately a meeting was held by Shouldham Parish Council 6th August 2018 and the following key points were identified;
* If approved, the first phase of the project will involve the stripping of all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields allowing access to the sand below. This will involve the use of heavy duty earth moving equipment.
* The second phase will involve the flooding of the land and dredging on the sand, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No restriction on working hours has been planned. There are also concerns as this type of dredging has not been carried out by Sibelco in the UK before.
* Planned start date 2026 for a period in excess of 20 years.
The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues
a. Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated.
b. The amount of soil and clay to be removed to access the sand is significant and not just a simple surface scrape.
c. The land in question is high quality agricultural land. The Carbon footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Plants and agricultural farmland.
d. Due to the depth of the dig and volume of material to be removed it is doubtful if the site will ever be returned to agricultural land.
e. Any screening or Bunding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?
f. Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
g. Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
I. Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
II. Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
2. Health and safety
a. The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues. The wind typically blows from this site directly towards Marham. Under these circumstances the 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.
b. 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.
The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm
Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. Heavy and prolonged exposure to RCS can cause lung cancer and other serious respiratory diseases. HSE commissioned estimates it was responsible for the death of over 500 construction workers in 2005. In addition to the risks from lung cancer, silica is also linked to other serious lung diseases:
* Silicosis can cause severe breathing problems and increases the risk of lung infections. Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS over many years, but extremely high exposures can cause acute silicosis more quickly.
* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung diseases including bronchitis and emphysema. It results in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death.
The NHS website also states;
www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/
Silicosis
Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years.
Silica is a substance naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Working with these materials can create a very fine dust that can be easily inhaled.
Once inside the lungs, the dust particles are attacked by the immune system.
This causes swelling (inflammation) and gradually leads to areas of hardened and scarred lung tissue (fibrosis). Lung tissue that's scarred in this way doesn't function properly.
People who work in the following industries are particularly at risk:
* stone masonry and stone cutting - especially with sandstone
* construction and demolition - as a result of exposure to concrete and paving materials
* pottery, ceramics and glass manufacturing
* mining and quarrying
* sand blasting
3. Noise, dust and light pollution
a. The area under consideration is extremely flat with no natural noise, light or dust barriers. Therefore screening will be ineffective and the entire site will be visible to the majority of the residents of Marham. There is no Bunding large enough to provide a barrier against the noise and light pollution this work will cause. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable.
4. Access to site
a. The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing a pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping.
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.
b. Any Bunding and piles of surface soil and clay will only reduce the natural flow of water and increase the risk of flooding further.
c. 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.
6. Increased risk of Bird Strikes on aircraft
a. 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. In accordance with government guidelines there should be a 13km radius from the centre point of RAF Marham designated as a safeguarding area against bird strike, industrial lighting etc. This area is prone to flooding and will flood once material is extracted. The flooding of the area either during the dredging process or on completion of the sand removal is of concern as this will increase the number of birds and wild fowl resulting in potential bird strikes on aircraft in close proximity to RAF Marham.
7. 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.
c. No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
8. Property Value
a. This will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least 28 years. Who wants to live near and look at a Silica sand extraction plant that will be in opened from 2026 and in operation for at least 20 years, probably much longer?
b. Potential increase on home insurance due to increased flood risk
Please accept the above points as part of our formal objection to the planned sand extraction at Site SIL 02, Marham and Shouldham,
RE: PROPOSED SITE SIL 02 AS A PREFERRED AREA FOR SILICA SAND EXTRACTION
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most other residents, was totally unaware or advised of such a scheme until a neighbour informed me of it a few days ago. Apparently only 10 letters were sent out to properties closest to the site. It now also appears that this plan has been discussed by the county council for over three years. Why have we not been made aware of this plan earlier?
Fortunately a meeting was held by Shouldham Parish Council 6th August 2018 and the following key points were identified;
* If approved, the first phase of the project will involve the stripping of all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields allowing access to the sand below. This will involve the use of heavy duty earth moving equipment.
* The second phase will involve the flooding of the land and dredging on the sand, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No restriction on working hours has been planned. There are also concerns as this type of dredging has not been carried out by Sibelco in the UK before.
* Planned start date 2026 for a period in excess of 20 years.
The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues
a. Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated.
b. The amount of soil and clay to be removed to access the sand is significant and not just a simple surface scrape.
c. The land in question is high quality agricultural land. The Carbon footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Plants and agricultural farmland.
d. Due to the depth of the dig and volume of material to be removed it is doubtful if the site will ever be returned to agricultural land.
e. Any screening or Bunding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?
f. Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
g. Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
I. Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
II. Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
2. Health and safety
a. The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues. The wind typically blows from this site directly towards Marham. Under these circumstances the 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.
b. 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.
The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm
Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. Heavy and prolonged exposure to RCS can cause lung cancer and other serious respiratory diseases. HSE commissioned estimates it was responsible for the death of over 500 construction workers in 2005. In addition to the risks from lung cancer, silica is also linked to other serious lung diseases:
* Silicosis can cause severe breathing problems and increases the risk of lung infections. Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS over many years, but extremely high exposures can cause acute silicosis more quickly.
* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung diseases including bronchitis and emphysema. It results in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death.
The NHS website also states;
www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/
Silicosis
Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years.
Silica is a substance naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Working with these materials can create a very fine dust that can be easily inhaled.
Once inside the lungs, the dust particles are attacked by the immune system.
This causes swelling (inflammation) and gradually leads to areas of hardened and scarred lung tissue (fibrosis). Lung tissue that's scarred in this way doesn't function properly.
People who work in the following industries are particularly at risk:
* stone masonry and stone cutting - especially with sandstone
* construction and demolition - as a result of exposure to concrete and paving materials
* pottery, ceramics and glass manufacturing
* mining and quarrying
* sand blasting
3. Noise, dust and light pollution
a. The area under consideration is extremely flat with no natural noise, light or dust barriers. Therefore screening will be ineffective and the entire site will be visible to the majority of the residents of Marham. There is no Bunding large enough to provide a barrier against the noise and light pollution this work will cause. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable.
4. Access to site
a. The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing a pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping.
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.
b. Any Bunding and piles of surface soil and clay will only reduce the natural flow of water and increase the risk of flooding further.
c. 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.
6. Increased risk of Bird Strikes on aircraft
a. 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. In accordance with government guidelines there should be a 13km radius from the centre point of RAF Marham designated as a safeguarding area against bird strike, industrial lighting etc. This area is prone to flooding and will flood once material is extracted. The flooding of the area either during the dredging process or on completion of the sand removal is of concern as this will increase the number of birds and wild fowl resulting in potential bird strikes on aircraft in close proximity to RAF Marham.
7. 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.
c. No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
8. Property Value
a. This will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least 28 years. Who wants to live near and look at a Silica sand extraction plant that will be in opened from 2026 and in operation for at least 20 years, probably much longer?
b. Potential increase on home insurance due to increased flood risk
Please accept the above points as part of our formal objection to the planned sand extraction at Site SIL 02, Marham and Shouldham,
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92212
Received: 15/08/2018
Respondent: Ms W 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 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.
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
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92213
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Ms S Rose-Land
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.
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
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92214
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Ms J Rose-Land
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.
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
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92215
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Mr A Rose-Land
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.
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
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92216
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Mrs S Dann
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.
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
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92217
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Mr A Dann
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.
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
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92218
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Mr C Dann
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.
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
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92219
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Mr Marc Boyd
I would like to object to the proposed site area of Marham and Shouldham for the extraction of silica sand.
On an infrastructure that is already affected by the increasing size of RAF Marham I am concerned about the impact the proposed extraction will have on our air quality, roads, noise pollution and wildlife.
Furthermore, I particularly object to the way in which this information has been withheld from local residents and only by word of mouth have I heard about the proposal with only days before the deadline.
My particular concerns of the proposal are as follows:
~ Noise pollution, as per our rights in the European Convention on Human Rights we are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of our homes ~ We often enjoy walks on the footpaths provided in this area which would no longer exist ~ There are no assurances that the site will not be used for landfill in the future ~ Impact on house values and slowing down of market in the villages ~ Road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant machinery ~ Air quality and dust pollution ~ The impact extraction might have on landscape with this being a high risk flood area
I would like you to address the above concerns regarding the Marham and Shouldham site before any further decision is made on the proposal.
I would like to object to the proposed site area of Marham and Shouldham for the extraction of silica sand.
On an infrastructure that is already affected by the increasing size of RAF Marham I am concerned about the impact the proposed extraction will have on our air quality, roads, noise pollution and wildlife.
Furthermore, I particularly object to the way in which this information has been withheld from local residents and only by word of mouth have I heard about the proposal with only days before the deadline.
My particular concerns of the proposal are as follows:
~ Noise pollution, as per our rights in the European Convention on Human Rights we are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of our homes ~ We often enjoy walks on the footpaths provided in this area which would no longer exist ~ There are no assurances that the site will not be used for landfill in the future ~ Impact on house values and slowing down of market in the villages ~ Road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant machinery ~ Air quality and dust pollution ~ The impact extraction might have on landscape with this being a high risk flood area
I would like you to address the above concerns regarding the Marham and Shouldham site before any further decision is made on the proposal.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92220
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Sir Jeremy Bagge
It was late Monday, 13th August that I was telephoned by a Marham resident to ask for my views on the Consultation Document.
It was the first that I became aware of the proposed site and I have not been copied in to the Consultation Document; albeit that I live at Marham House PE33 9HS which looks west over the fens to Shouldham Warren (the site).
I understand that I have an extended period running from 13th August to 17th August in which to raise any objections that I may have.
As a starter, I confirm my support to the Letter of Objection 12th August, copy attached, and signed as being in approval.
I would also like to add some other observations which I have taken from:
1. Minerals Local Plan May 1994.
i) The Deposit Version generally makes interesting reading and establishes principals.
2. Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) October 2009.
i) No mention of the area under consultation. Page 155.
3.Core Strategy April 2010. Period 2010 - 2025.
i) p. 39 - 15 Years Allocation allocated.
ii) p. 55 - The sensitive and serious issue of Transport
iii) p. 64 - The issue of supply of drinking water from Marham pumping station and disturbing the surface water drainage.
iv) p. 65 - Flood risk does not cover the area to the East of the River Nar which is low lying.
v) p. 67/68 - Safeguarding aerodromes within 8.125 miles of the proposed site.
In conclusion at this stage there are many local environmental aspects to be considered but the recent £100's of millions invested in R.A.F. Marham and with the arrival of the F35B Lightning aircraft being based at the Station, the Ministry of Defence will surely be seriously concerned about the light carbon silica dust over the workings and also the potential bird strikes in near close proximity to the proposed area.
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
It was late Monday, 13th August that I was telephoned by a Marham resident to ask for my views on the Consultation Document.
It was the first that I became aware of the proposed site and I have not been copied in to the Consultation Document; albeit that I live at Marham House PE33 9HS which looks west over the fens to Shouldham Warren (the site).
I understand that I have an extended period running from 13th August to 17th August in which to raise any objections that I may have.
As a starter, I confirm my support to the Letter of Objection 12th August, copy attached, and signed as being in approval.
I would also like to add some other observations which I have taken from:
1. Minerals Local Plan May 1994.
i) The Deposit Version generally makes interesting reading and establishes principals.
2. Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) October 2009.
i) No mention of the area under consultation. Page 155.
3.Core Strategy April 2010. Period 2010 - 2025.
i) p. 39 - 15 Years Allocation allocated.
ii) p. 55 - The sensitive and serious issue of Transport
iii) p. 64 - The issue of supply of drinking water from Marham pumping station and disturbing the surface water drainage.
iv) p. 65 - Flood risk does not cover the area to the East of the River Nar which is low lying.
v) p. 67/68 - Safeguarding aerodromes within 8.125 miles of the proposed site.
In conclusion at this stage there are many local environmental aspects to be considered but the recent £100's of millions invested in R.A.F. Marham and with the arrival of the F35B Lightning aircraft being based at the Station, the Ministry of Defence will surely be seriously concerned about the light carbon silica dust over the workings and also the potential bird strikes in near close proximity to the proposed area.
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
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92221
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Mr & Mrs P & C Morley
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.
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
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92222
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Mr John Carman
I would like to lodge my objection to SIL02 - the proopsed silica sand excavation site to the northeast of Shouldham on the following grounds...
- Destruction of local ecology
- Destruction of valuable agricultural land
- Increaded noise during periods of excavation, many residents live within a few hundred meters
- Reduction in local housing value
- Reduction in tourism and visitors - the warren currently attracts people from far and wide to the local area and this helps support the now thriving and award winning local pub.
- Exposure to Silica dust and the associated health issues, this is within 2 km of the local school
- Unsuitable road infrastructure for the removal of any waste material
- Close proximity to the local RAF base, increased water will increase the bird population and will be a risk for jets
In Summary this will have a devistating impact on the local community, school and pub and will destroy a thriving local receational and beauty spot.
I would like to lodge my objection to SIL02 - the proopsed silica sand excavation site to the northeast of Shouldham on the following grounds...
- Destruction of local ecology
- Destruction of valuable agricultural land
- Increaded noise during periods of excavation, many residents live within a few hundred meters
- Reduction in local housing value
- Reduction in tourism and visitors - the warren currently attracts people from far and wide to the local area and this helps support the now thriving and award winning local pub.
- Exposure to Silica dust and the associated health issues, this is within 2 km of the local school
- Unsuitable road infrastructure for the removal of any waste material
- Close proximity to the local RAF base, increased water will increase the bird population and will be a risk for jets
In Summary this will have a devistating impact on the local community, school and pub and will destroy a thriving local receational and beauty spot.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92225
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Mr B Greene
RE: PROPOSED SITE SIL 02 AS A PREFERRED AREA FOR SILICA SAND EXTRACTION
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most other residents, was totally unaware or advised of such a scheme until a neighbour informed me of it a few days ago. Apparently only 10 letters were sent out to properties closest to the site. It now also appears that this plan has been discussed by the county council for over three years. Why have we not been made aware of this plan earlier?
Fortunately a meeting was held by Shouldham Parish Council 6th August 2018 and the following key points were identified;
* If approved, the first phase of the project will involve the stripping of all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields allowing access to the sand below. This will involve the use of heavy duty earth moving equipment.
* The second phase will involve the flooding of the land and dredging on the sand, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No restriction on working hours has been planned. There are also concerns as this type of dredging has not been carried out by Sibelco in the UK before.
* Planned start date 2026 for a period in excess of 20 years.
The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues
a. Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated.
b. The amount of soil and clay to be removed to access the sand is significant and not just a simple surface scrape.
c. The land in question is high quality agricultural land. The Carbon footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Plants and agricultural farmland.
d. Due to the depth of the dig and volume of material to be removed it is doubtful if the site will ever be returned to agricultural land.
e. Any screening or Bunding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?
f. Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
g. Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
I. Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
II. Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
2. Health and safety
a. The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues. The wind typically blows from this site directly towards Marham. Under these circumstances the 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.
b. 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.
The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm
Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. Heavy and prolonged exposure to RCS can cause lung cancer and other serious respiratory diseases. HSE commissioned estimates it was responsible for the death of over 500 construction workers in 2005. In addition to the risks from lung cancer, silica is also linked to other serious lung diseases:
* Silicosis can cause severe breathing problems and increases the risk of lung infections. Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS over many years, but extremely high exposures can cause acute silicosis more quickly.
* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung diseases including bronchitis and emphysema. It results in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death.
The NHS website also states;
www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/
Silicosis
Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years.
Silica is a substance naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Working with these materials can create a very fine dust that can be easily inhaled.
Once inside the lungs, the dust particles are attacked by the immune system.
This causes swelling (inflammation) and gradually leads to areas of hardened and scarred lung tissue (fibrosis). Lung tissue that's scarred in this way doesn't function properly.
People who work in the following industries are particularly at risk:
* stone masonry and stone cutting - especially with sandstone
* construction and demolition - as a result of exposure to concrete and paving materials
* pottery, ceramics and glass manufacturing
* mining and quarrying
* sand blasting
3. Noise, dust and light pollution
a. The area under consideration is extremely flat with no natural noise, light or dust barriers. Therefore screening will be ineffective and the entire site will be visible to the majority of the residents of Marham. There is no Bunding large enough to provide a barrier against the noise and light pollution this work will cause. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable.
4. Access to site
a. The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing a pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping.
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.
b. Any Bunding and piles of surface soil and clay will only reduce the natural flow of water and increase the risk of flooding further.
c. 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.
6. Increased risk of Bird Strikes on aircraft
a. 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. In accordance with government guidelines there should be a 13km radius from the centre point of RAF Marham designated as a safeguarding area against bird strike, industrial lighting etc. This area is prone to flooding and will flood once material is extracted. The flooding of the area either during the dredging process or on completion of the sand removal is of concern as this will increase the number of birds and wild fowl resulting in potential bird strikes on aircraft in close proximity to RAF Marham.
7. 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.
c. No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
8. Property Value
a. This will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least 28 years. Who wants to live near and look at a Silica sand extraction plant that will be in opened from 2026 and in operation for at least 20 years, probably much longer?
b. Potential increase on home insurance due to increased flood risk
Please accept the above points as part of our formal objection to the planned sand extraction at Site SIL 02, Marham and Shouldham
RE: PROPOSED SITE SIL 02 AS A PREFERRED AREA FOR SILICA SAND EXTRACTION
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most other residents, was totally unaware or advised of such a scheme until a neighbour informed me of it a few days ago. Apparently only 10 letters were sent out to properties closest to the site. It now also appears that this plan has been discussed by the county council for over three years. Why have we not been made aware of this plan earlier?
Fortunately a meeting was held by Shouldham Parish Council 6th August 2018 and the following key points were identified;
* If approved, the first phase of the project will involve the stripping of all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields allowing access to the sand below. This will involve the use of heavy duty earth moving equipment.
* The second phase will involve the flooding of the land and dredging on the sand, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No restriction on working hours has been planned. There are also concerns as this type of dredging has not been carried out by Sibelco in the UK before.
* Planned start date 2026 for a period in excess of 20 years.
The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues
a. Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated.
b. The amount of soil and clay to be removed to access the sand is significant and not just a simple surface scrape.
c. The land in question is high quality agricultural land. The Carbon footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Plants and agricultural farmland.
d. Due to the depth of the dig and volume of material to be removed it is doubtful if the site will ever be returned to agricultural land.
e. Any screening or Bunding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?
f. Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
g. Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
I. Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
II. Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge
2. Health and safety
a. The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues. The wind typically blows from this site directly towards Marham. Under these circumstances the 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.
b. 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.
The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm
Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. Heavy and prolonged exposure to RCS can cause lung cancer and other serious respiratory diseases. HSE commissioned estimates it was responsible for the death of over 500 construction workers in 2005. In addition to the risks from lung cancer, silica is also linked to other serious lung diseases:
* Silicosis can cause severe breathing problems and increases the risk of lung infections. Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS over many years, but extremely high exposures can cause acute silicosis more quickly.
* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung diseases including bronchitis and emphysema. It results in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death.
The NHS website also states;
www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/
Silicosis
Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years.
Silica is a substance naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Working with these materials can create a very fine dust that can be easily inhaled.
Once inside the lungs, the dust particles are attacked by the immune system.
This causes swelling (inflammation) and gradually leads to areas of hardened and scarred lung tissue (fibrosis). Lung tissue that's scarred in this way doesn't function properly.
People who work in the following industries are particularly at risk:
* stone masonry and stone cutting - especially with sandstone
* construction and demolition - as a result of exposure to concrete and paving materials
* pottery, ceramics and glass manufacturing
* mining and quarrying
* sand blasting
3. Noise, dust and light pollution
a. The area under consideration is extremely flat with no natural noise, light or dust barriers. Therefore screening will be ineffective and the entire site will be visible to the majority of the residents of Marham. There is no Bunding large enough to provide a barrier against the noise and light pollution this work will cause. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable.
4. Access to site
a. The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing a pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping.
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.
b. Any Bunding and piles of surface soil and clay will only reduce the natural flow of water and increase the risk of flooding further.
c. 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.
6. Increased risk of Bird Strikes on aircraft
a. 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. In accordance with government guidelines there should be a 13km radius from the centre point of RAF Marham designated as a safeguarding area against bird strike, industrial lighting etc. This area is prone to flooding and will flood once material is extracted. The flooding of the area either during the dredging process or on completion of the sand removal is of concern as this will increase the number of birds and wild fowl resulting in potential bird strikes on aircraft in close proximity to RAF Marham.
7. 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.
c. No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
8. Property Value
a. This will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least 28 years. Who wants to live near and look at a Silica sand extraction plant that will be in opened from 2026 and in operation for at least 20 years, probably much longer?
b. Potential increase on home insurance due to increased flood risk
Please accept the above points as part of our formal objection to the planned sand extraction at Site SIL 02, Marham and Shouldham,
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92226
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Ms Kim Fletcher
Please place on record my objection to proposals by Norfolk County Council to permit a silica extraction plant on land between the villages of Shouldham and Marham.
While I appreciate that the council has to meet obligations for the provision of such sites, I believe this proposal would be very damaging to these two villages - and in particular to Marham.
The council has produced a fascinating amount of research relating to the natural environment, historical sites and wildlife, but I do not think that work takes into account the unusual nature of Marham. Here, the RAF airfield in effect closes off one entire side of a village that has grown as a long, ribbon development along the main road. We make no complaint about that: the airfield was there long before us. As a result, however, the only real pedestrian access to open land is to the west, towards the Nar, across the very area that is proposed for the silica site.
I run that almost every weekend and often return to walk it in the afternoons. The footpath to the river takes me between arable land and fen used by a fascinating variety of birds, hares and roe deer. Early in the morning, I usually see at least one barn owl quartering the rough pasture. Later in the day I pass a number of walkers from the village, typically with dogs. It's strange to say this, given the rural location, but this is really the only open land we have within easy walking distance. The gatehouse at Pentney Abbey, on the other side of the Nar, is one of the most atmospheric historical landmarks I know. Whatever screening arrangements are made, I believe the site will destroy this area.
Marham is not blessed architecturally. We don't have a green, there is no natural centre. We already bear the brunt of aircraft noise and traffic to the airbase. That this is not a "chocolate box" location makes the natural amenity we do have, all the more precious. I urge you to reconsider your plans.
Please place on record my objection to proposals by Norfolk County Council to permit a silica extraction plant on land between the villages of Shouldham and Marham.
While I appreciate that the council has to meet obligations for the provision of such sites, I believe this proposal would be very damaging to these two villages - and in particular to Marham.
The council has produced a fascinating amount of research relating to the natural environment, historical sites and wildlife, but I do not think that work takes into account the unusual nature of Marham. Here, the RAF airfield in effect closes off one entire side of a village that has grown as a long, ribbon development along the main road. We make no complaint about that: the airfield was there long before us. As a result, however, the only real pedestrian access to open land is to the west, towards the Nar, across the very area that is proposed for the silica site.
I run that almost every weekend and often return to walk it in the afternoons. The footpath to the river takes me between arable land and fen used by a fascinating variety of birds, hares and roe deer. Early in the morning, I usually see at least one barn owl quartering the rough pasture. Later in the day I pass a number of walkers from the village, typically with dogs. It's strange to say this, given the rural location, but this is really the only open land we have within easy walking distance. The gatehouse at Pentney Abbey, on the other side of the Nar, is one of the most atmospheric historical landmarks I know. Whatever screening arrangements are made, I believe the site will destroy this area.
Marham is not blessed architecturally. We don't have a green, there is no natural centre. We already bear the brunt of aircraft noise and traffic to the airbase. That this is not a "chocolate box" location makes the natural amenity we do have, all the more precious. I urge you to reconsider your plans.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92227
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Mrs Karen McCoy
I object to the application of mineral extraction north of my home in Marham.
I object to the application of mineral extraction north of my home in Marham.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92228
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Ms A Millham
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, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.
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, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92229
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Ms E Millham
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, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.
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, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92230
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Mr R Millham
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, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.
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, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92231
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Ms A Woolmer
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, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.
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, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92232
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Mr C McCallion
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, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.
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, we would be happy to discuss the matter further.
Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92234
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Miss M Elmslie
Proposed Site SIL 02 As A Preferred Area for Silica Sand Extraction by SIBELCO UK Ltd Behind Spring Lane and Mere Plot Near Marham and Shouldham, Kings Lynn, NORFOLK.
Please accept this letter as a formal objection to the above. As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most other residents, was totally unaware or advised of such a scheme until a neighbour informed me of it a few days ago. Apparently only 10 letters were sent out to properties closest to the site. It also appears that this plan has been discussed by the County Council for over three years. My property will be just a field away from the proposed site. I will have full view of the eyesore and will be greatly impacted by it.
The consultation period for this development ends in the next few days giving the residents of Marham and Shouldham minimal time to review and comment on such a scheme. Considering the size and nature of this planned development this is totally unacceptable and unprofessional. Why have we not been made aware of this plan earlier? Fortunately a meeting was held by Shouldham Parish Council 06 August 2018 and the following key points identified;
* If approved, the first phase of the project will involve the stripping of all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields to allow quarrying equipment access to the sand below. This will involve the use of heavy duty earth moving equipment.
* The second phase will involve the flooding of the land and dredging on the sand, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No restriction on working hours has been planned. There are also concerns as this type of dredging has not been carried out by Sibelco in the UK before.
* Planned start date 2026 for a period in excess of 20 years.
The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues a. Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated. b. Mow Fen, a country Wildlife site, is located within this area. c. The Carbon Footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Nearly 400 hectares of good quality agricultural farmland will be lost forever at a time where, as a nation, we need to be considering growing more crops. d. Any screening or binding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and the views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?
2. Health and safety The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues. Smaller particles of sand and dust will travel long distances and easily reach properties in Marham and Shouldham. This area of land is extremely flat with no natural barriers to slow or prevent the movement of dust and fine particles from the site to the adjacent properties. The effects of this on the health of the elderly, asthma sufferers and those with breathing issues will be significant. The government website states the following; www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. Heavy and prolonged exposure to RCS can cause lung cancer and other serious respiratory diseases. HSE commissioned estimates it was responsible for the death of over 500 construction workers in 2005. In addition to the risks from lung cancer, silica is also linked to other serious lung diseases:
* Silicosis can cause severe breathing problems and increases the risk of lung infections. Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS over many years, but extremely high exposures can cause acute silicosis more quickly.
* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung diseases including bronchitis and emphysema. It results in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death. The NHS website also states; www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/ Silicosis Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years. Silica is a substance naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Working with these materials can create a very fine dust that can be easily inhaled. Once inside the lungs, the dust particles are attacked by the immune system. This causes swelling (inflammation) and gradually leads to areas of hardened and scarred lung tissue (fibrosis). Lung tissue that's scarred in this way doesn't function properly. People who work in the following industries are particularly at risk:
Silicosis
www.nhs.uk
Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years.
* 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
Proposed Site SIL 02 As A Preferred Area for Silica Sand Extraction by SIBELCO UK Ltd Behind Spring Lane and Mere Plot Near Marham and Shouldham, Kings Lynn, NORFOLK.
Please accept this letter as a formal objection to the above. As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most other residents, was totally unaware or advised of such a scheme until a neighbour informed me of it a few days ago. Apparently only 10 letters were sent out to properties closest to the site. It also appears that this plan has been discussed by the County Council for over three years. My property will be just a field away from the proposed site. I will have full view of the eyesore and will be greatly impacted by it.
The consultation period for this development ends in the next few days giving the residents of Marham and Shouldham minimal time to review and comment on such a scheme. Considering the size and nature of this planned development this is totally unacceptable and unprofessional. Why have we not been made aware of this plan earlier? Fortunately a meeting was held by Shouldham Parish Council 06 August 2018 and the following key points identified;
* If approved, the first phase of the project will involve the stripping of all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields to allow quarrying equipment access to the sand below. This will involve the use of heavy duty earth moving equipment.
* The second phase will involve the flooding of the land and dredging on the sand, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No restriction on working hours has been planned. There are also concerns as this type of dredging has not been carried out by Sibelco in the UK before.
* Planned start date 2026 for a period in excess of 20 years.
The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues a. Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated. b. Mow Fen, a country Wildlife site, is located within this area. c. The Carbon Footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Nearly 400 hectares of good quality agricultural farmland will be lost forever at a time where, as a nation, we need to be considering growing more crops. d. Any screening or binding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and the views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?
2. Health and safety The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues. Smaller particles of sand and dust will travel long distances and easily reach properties in Marham and Shouldham. This area of land is extremely flat with no natural barriers to slow or prevent the movement of dust and fine particles from the site to the adjacent properties. The effects of this on the health of the elderly, asthma sufferers and those with breathing issues will be significant. The government website states the following; www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. Heavy and prolonged exposure to RCS can cause lung cancer and other serious respiratory diseases. HSE commissioned estimates it was responsible for the death of over 500 construction workers in 2005. In addition to the risks from lung cancer, silica is also linked to other serious lung diseases:
* Silicosis can cause severe breathing problems and increases the risk of lung infections. Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS over many years, but extremely high exposures can cause acute silicosis more quickly.
* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung diseases including bronchitis and emphysema. It results in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death. The NHS website also states; www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/ Silicosis Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years. Silica is a substance naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Working with these materials can create a very fine dust that can be easily inhaled. Once inside the lungs, the dust particles are attacked by the immune system. This causes swelling (inflammation) and gradually leads to areas of hardened and scarred lung tissue (fibrosis). Lung tissue that's scarred in this way doesn't function properly. People who work in the following industries are particularly at risk:
Silicosis
www.nhs.uk
Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years.
* 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