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

Showing comments and forms 91 to 120 of 399

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92235

Received: 16/08/2018

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Chaplin

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

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

We are extremely concerned about the development of this site.

We object too to the fact that until we saw a notice on a telegraph post we were unaware that this development was be a preferred site. There has been no information from the company to inform the residents who may be affected.

Our objections are :

The roads are not built for the influx of yet more heavy vehicles.

We would also be very concerned that the impact would have a detrimental effect on our heritage of the ancient footpaths and especially Pentney Abbey, plus the destruction of wildlife.

We are elderly with certain health problems that could be made worse by any residual dust from the workings.

Full text:

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

We are extremely concerned about the development of this site.

We object too to the fact that until we saw a notice on a telegraph post we were unaware that this development was be a preferred site. There has been no information from the company to inform the residents who may be affected.

Our objections are :

The roads are not built for the influx of yet more heavy vehicles.

We would also be very concerned that the impact would have a detrimental effect on our heritage of the ancient footpaths and especially Pentney Abbey, plus the destruction of wildlife.

We are elderly with certain health problems that could be made worse by any residual dust from the workings.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92236

Received: 16/08/2018

Respondent: Mr R Perry

Representation Summary:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction at Marham and Shouldham.
As a resident of Marham who will over look the site I would like to voice my concern, of the impact on the wild life there are a lot of deer which roam freely around the village but come from the area in question. You hear owls at night and when you walk around the lanes, there is a lot of bird life. This is one of my concern wear are they all going to go when this is getting constructed.
But one of my biggest concerns is would you build a lake next to Herthrow Airport to attract birds to the area which has a lot of jet engines flying around. They say it is going to be a big lake and they are going to pump the sand from the bottom. I watch the planes go over the area in question and if they have to circle around before they land it is normal low. Now I believe that one of these planes cost millions of pounds and if one goes down were is it going to go down with the possibility of loss of life as well as lots of tax payers money. I am sure there are lots of reasons why it should not be built here but this area is part of the nations defence and it is to close to RAF Marham.

Full text:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction at Marham and Shouldham.
As a resident of Marham who will over look the site I would like to voice my concern, of the impact on the wild life there are a lot of deer which roam freely around the village but come from the area in question. You hear owls at night and when you walk around the lanes, there is a lot of bird life. This is one of my concern wear are they all going to go when this is getting constructed.
But one of my biggest concerns is would you build a lake next to Herthrow Airport to attract birds to the area which has a lot of jet engines flying around. They say it is going to be a big lake and they are going to pump the sand from the bottom. I watch the planes go over the area in question and if they have to circle around before they land it is normal low. Now I believe that one of these planes cost millions of pounds and if one goes down were is it going to go down with the possibility of loss of life as well as lots of tax payers money. I am sure there are lots of reasons why it should not be built here but this area is part of the nations defence and it is to close to RAF Marham.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92237

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Ms A Copsey

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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: 92239

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Bridget Archibald

Representation Summary:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 and AOS E as preferred areas 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.

Full text:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 and AOS E as preferred areas 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: 92241

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Archibald

Representation Summary:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 and AOS E as preferred areas 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.

Full text:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL. 02 and AOS E as preferred areas 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: 92242

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Chris Tenney

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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: 92244

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Hallett

Representation Summary:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 and AOS E 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 longreaching 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

Social

* Shouldham Warren is used by many as a social and leisure area including: individual walkers, runners, cyclist, dog walkers, horse riders and family days out. It is also used by the local groups such as King's Lynn MTB (KLMTB), who not only have regular group rides 3-4 times a week, but also hold training sessions for youths on a weekly basis in addition to the group rides already taking place. Ryston runners and KLMTB both hold regular events at Shouldham Warren, drawing people from far and wide to the local area. The local Primary school has many of its pupils involved in the Ryston running events. The Primary school also uses the forest as a unique learning opportunity for its children, walking whole classes to the Warren where they can then spend time learning in a local outdoor environment. The warren is used by a local church group too as a forest school. What will become of these social activities that provide much needed opportunities for social interaction and physical activity? The social, emotional, physical, health and developmental benefits that Shouldham Warren offers local residents and those who travel from outside of Shouldham, Marham and Wormegay area will be lost. These must not be overlooked at a time when the importance on health and wellbeing could not be more important.

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.

Full text:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 and AOS E 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 longreaching 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

2


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

Social

* Shouldham Warren is used by many as a social and leisure area including: individual walkers, runners, cyclist, dog walkers, horse riders and family days out. It is also used by the local groups such as King's Lynn MTB (KLMTB), who not only have regular group rides 3-4 times a week, but also hold training sessions for youths on a weekly basis in addition to the group rides already taking place. Ryston runners and KLMTB both hold regular events at Shouldham Warren, drawing people from far and wide to the local area. The local Primary school has many of its pupils involved in the Ryston running events. The Primary school also uses the forest as a unique learning opportunity for its children, walking whole classes to the Warren where they can then spend time learning in a local outdoor environment. The warren is used by a local church group too as a forest school. What will become of these social activities that provide much needed opportunities for social interaction and physical activity? The social, emotional, physical, health and developmental benefits that Shouldham Warren offers local residents and those who travel from outside of Shouldham, Marham and Wormegay area will be lost. These must not be overlooked at a time when the importance on health and wellbeing could not be more important.

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: 92246

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Sarah Swanson

Representation Summary:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed sites SIL. 02 and AOS E as preferred areas 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.

Full text:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed sites SIL. 02 and AOS E as preferred areas 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: 92247

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Sonia Williams

Representation Summary:

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 but feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco does not address the negative impact on the local residents, community and environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and the time scales involved.

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 as they were not notified of the consultation and have had only a few days to prepare a response.

In particular my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health/Safety and 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, specially 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 presents significant risks 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 effect on the housing market.

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:-

Voles, newts, scarce emerald damselfly, moths including the grizzled skipper, dingy skipper

Birds - conservation priority red list: skylark, lapwing, house sparrow, linnet,
yellowhammer, song thrush, grey wagtail, tree pipit, nightjar, woodlark & grey partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.
Landscape
* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right

Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local
landscape.
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and the impact on health.
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100 m 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 and 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.
* 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 econological benefit.

In conclusion I would like to add that any one responsible for making decisions on this proposal should not just come to the area for a site visit or a formal meeting but should spend time in the villages, visit the schools, pubs and community to meet the people whose homes and lives are under threat.

Full text:

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 but feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco does not address the negative impact on the local residents, community and environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and the time scales involved.

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 as they were not notified of the consultation and have had only a few days to prepare a response.

In particular my objection is based on the following grounds:

Health/Safety and 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, specially 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 presents significant risks 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 effect on the housing market.

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:-

Voles, newts, scarce emerald damselfly, moths including the grizzled skipper, dingy skipper

Birds - conservation priority red list: skylark, lapwing, house sparrow, linnet,
yellowhammer, song thrush, grey wagtail, tree pipit, nightjar, woodlark & grey partridge
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.
Landscape
* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful long-reaching views across the fen landscape.
Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right

Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local
landscape.
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and the impact on health.
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100 m 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 and 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.
* 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 econological benefit.

In conclusion I would like to add that any one responsible for making decisions on this proposal should not just come to the area for a site visit or a formal meeting but should spend time in the villages, visit the schools, pubs and community to meet the people whose homes and lives are under threat.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92249

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Sarah French

Representation Summary:

I would like to register my objection to proposed sites SIL 02 and AOS-E as preferred areas 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 base 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 timescales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principals 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 and 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 the 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 presents 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 village 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 and A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed sites and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers

Ecology

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

Archaeology

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

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

Full text:

I would like to register my objection to proposed sites SIL 02 and AOS-E as preferred areas 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 base 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 timescales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principals 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 and 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 the 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 presents 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 village 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 and A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed sites and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers

Ecology

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

Archaeology

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

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

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92250

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Mr John Clarke

Representation Summary:

The residents of Marham and Shouldham live in a quiet rural community that has provided a peaceful home for the RAF and their families for 100 years. For the community this is an area of natural beauty that is highly valued.
A proposed development of this scale and impact must be put to a democratic vote via a local referendum. The proposals will blight the community, ruin the environment, and reduce the community amenity. The financial beneficiaries of this development have no long term interest in the local community or the condition of the environment.
There are many specific reasons why this this development proposal should be rejected, I anticipate these will be covered in detail by others. In addition to this the current consultation documentation is unacceptable, it is vague, not legally binding and therefore subject to variation. The reality is once this kind of development begins the terms of reference change and developments expanded both in scale and duration. It is also very concerning that there is no agreed restoration plan for this site. I would have thought that this a fundamental issue that underpins the sustainability and suitability of any development of this kind.

Whilst I recognise this is a consultation document the reality is that it will be used as the basis for going forward and as such the suggestion that the local community has been fully consulted will be inferred. I therefore oppose the proposals in principle as the primary stakeholder (the community) has not been fully informed or consulted. The consultation process has not been set out in detail. Guidance on the rights of the community to determine how they can shape decision making has not been provided.

Once a consultation process has been properly completed and due process seen to be done the County Council must undertake and fund a local referendum on this matter. The reason why the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union can be expressed in three words: 'To Take Back Control'. Local people must have control over the decisions that impact and shape their communities and environment. Elected representatives, Borough Councillors, County Councillors and Members of Parliament, must support and respect the democratic will of local people.

Full text:

The residents of Marham and Shouldham live in a quiet rural community that has provided a peaceful home for the RAF and their families for 100 years. For the community this is an area of natural beauty that is highly valued.
A proposed development of this scale and impact must be put to a democratic vote via a local referendum. The proposals will blight the community, ruin the environment, and reduce the community amenity. The financial beneficiaries of this development have no long term interest in the local community or the condition of the environment.
There are many specific reasons why this this development proposal should be rejected, I anticipate these will be covered in detail by others. In addition to this the current consultation documentation is unacceptable, it is vague, not legally binding and therefore subject to variation. The reality is once this kind of development begins the terms of reference change and developments expanded both in scale and duration. It is also very concerning that there is no agreed restoration plan for this site. I would have thought that this a fundamental issue that underpins the sustainability and suitability of any development of this kind.

Whilst I recognise this is a consultation document the reality is that it will be used as the basis for going forward and as such the suggestion that the local community has been fully consulted will be inferred. I therefore oppose the proposals in principle as the primary stakeholder (the community) has not been fully informed or consulted. The consultation process has not been set out in detail. Guidance on the rights of the community to determine how they can shape decision making has not been provided.

Once a consultation process has been properly completed and due process seen to be done the County Council must undertake and fund a local referendum on this matter. The reason why the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union can be expressed in three words: 'To Take Back Control'. Local people must have control over the decisions that impact and shape their communities and environment. Elected representatives, Borough Councillors, County Councillors and Members of Parliament, must support and respect the democratic will of local people.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92252

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Mr John Clarke

Representation Summary:

I would like to register my objection to proposed sites SIL 02 and AOS-E as preferred areas for silica sand extraction and understand our County Councillor, Graham Middleton, obtained an extension for responses from residents from Shouldham and Marham until today.

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 base 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 timescales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principals 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 and 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 the 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 presents 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 village 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 and A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed sites and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers

Ecology

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

Archaeology

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

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

Full text:

I would like to register my objection to proposed sites SIL 02 and AOS-E as preferred areas for silica sand extraction and understand our County Councillor, Graham Middleton, obtained an extension for responses from residents from Shouldham and Marham until today.

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 base 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 timescales involved in the development.

I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principals 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 and 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 the 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 presents 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 village 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 and A10)
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed sites and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers

Ecology

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

Archaeology

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

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

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92253

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Mr D McCoy

Representation Summary:

I object to the planning application north of my home in Marham

Full text:

I object to the planning application north of my home in Marham

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92255

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Matt Bressani

Representation Summary:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 and AOS E as a preferred areas for silica sand extraction in the vicinity of the villages of Shouldham and Marham.
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 our rural community.
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 these proposed sites 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 potentially unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on
Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.
Economic
* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
* No additional job creation.
* Reduction in house values.
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.
Local Infrastructure
* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10).
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.
Ecology
* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
* Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy
Skipper.
* Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet,
Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley.
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.
Landscape
* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful longreaching views across the fen landscape:
* Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
* Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated
100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.
Archaeology
* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.
Summary
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. Whilst I am sure that many of the concerns raised here may be easily answered, there are some which will have a huge impact on our villages and feel the manner in which the proposal has thus far been dealt with has not allowed any concerns of the local residents to be involved in the process. I remain committed to be involved in this process such that the concerns can be addressed. If you require any clarification of the points raised, I would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Full text:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 and AOS E as a preferred areas for silica sand extraction in the vicinity of the villages of Shouldham and Marham.
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 our rural community.
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 these proposed sites 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 potentially unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on
Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.
Economic
* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
* No additional job creation.
* Reduction in house values.
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.
Local Infrastructure
* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10).
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.
Ecology
* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
* Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy
Skipper.
* Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet,
Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley.
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.
Landscape
* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful longreaching views across the fen landscape:
* Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
* Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated
100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.
Archaeology
* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.
Summary
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. Whilst I am sure that many of the concerns raised here may be easily answered, there are some which will have a huge impact on our villages and feel the manner in which the proposal has thus far been dealt with has not allowed any concerns of the local residents to be involved in the process. I remain committed to be involved in this process such that the concerns can be addressed. If you require any clarification of the points raised, I would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92257

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs N Bressani

Representation Summary:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 and AOS E as a preferred areas for silica sand extraction in the vicinity of the villages of Shouldham and Marham.
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 our rural community.
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 these proposed sites 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 potentially unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on
Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.
Economic
* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
* No additional job creation.
* Reduction in house values.
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.
Local Infrastructure
* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10).
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.
Ecology
* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
* Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy
Skipper.
* Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet,
Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley.
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.
Landscape
* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful longreaching views across the fen landscape:
* Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
* Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated
100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.
Archaeology
* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.
Summary
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. Whilst I am sure that many of the concerns raised here may be easily answered, there are some which will have a huge impact on our villages and feel the manner in which the proposal has thus far been dealt with has not allowed any concerns of the local residents to be involved in the process. I remain committed to be involved in this process such that the concerns can be addressed. If you require any clarification of the points raised, I would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Full text:

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 and AOS E as a preferred areas for silica sand extraction in the vicinity of the villages of Shouldham and Marham.
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 our rural community.
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 these proposed sites 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 potentially unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on
Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics.
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water supply/quality.
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed.
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches.
Economic
* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham.
* No additional job creation.
* Reduction in house values.
* Potential impact on home insurance due to increased flood risk.
* Reduction in tourism and visitors to the Nar Valley Way.
* Creation of 'trapped' residents unable to move due to the inevitable slowing of the housing market.
Local Infrastructure
* Existing road infrastructure is unsuitable for HGV and plant access. Precedence has been established by RAF Marham who are prohibited from using village roads for access purposes.
* Local trunk roads will be negatively affected by increased traffic (A47 & A10).
* No proposal for Sibelco's preferred option for above ground pipeline between proposed site and their current site at Leziate taking into account natural and transport barriers.
Ecology
* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
* Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy
Skipper.
* Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet,
Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge.
* Dust deposition relating to the River Nar - a designated SSSI and a Core River valley.
* No proposal as to how the Core River Valley will be enhanced following mineral extraction.
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites.
* No restoration plan proposed for the entire site, which suggests there is no intention to remedy the harm caused, fears exacerbated by the very poor and dangerous condition of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate.
Landscape
* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful longreaching views across the fen landscape:
* Bunds or screening will be ineffective and intrusive in their own right.
* Proposed works will be visually detrimental and out of character with the local landscape.
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact on health.
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land.
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated
100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists.
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets.
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future.
Archaeology
* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project.
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.
Summary
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. Whilst I am sure that many of the concerns raised here may be easily answered, there are some which will have a huge impact on our villages and feel the manner in which the proposal has thus far been dealt with has not allowed any concerns of the local residents to be involved in the process. I remain committed to be involved in this process such that the concerns can be addressed. If you require any clarification of the points raised, I would be happy to discuss the matter further.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92258

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Ms K Bowles

Representation Summary:

I am emailing you as I would like to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I believe your proposal is an act of corporate vandalism on this rural area.

There is no economic benefit to be had by the people who live in this area but will, rather, have detrimental effect on house prices, house insurance and a reduction in tourist income for local businesses.

The local infrastructure is unsuitable for such a major project with the MOD already restricting HGV traffic.

Full text:

I am emailing you as I would like to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I believe your proposal is an act of corporate vandalism on this rural area.

There is no economic benefit to be had by the people who live in this area but will, rather, have detrimental effect on house prices, house insurance and a reduction in tourist income for local businesses.

The local infrastructure is unsuitable for such a major project with the MOD already restricting HGV traffic.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92259

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Mr D Bowles

Representation Summary:

I would like to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction in the strongest possible terms.

I believe your proposal will have major impacts on both the local community and the local environment and wildlife in this rural area.

There is will be no economic benefit to be had by the way of employment for the local people, in fact there will be severe detrimental effects on property values and resale potential, trapping local residents in this degraded environment.

The local infrastructure is also unsuitable for such a major project with the MOD already restricting HGV traffic and making it avoid Marham village.

The stated proposal is also extremely over optimistic on the project's overall impact and also on the effectiveness of any mitigating measures for local residents.

Full text:

I would like to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction in the strongest possible terms.

I believe your proposal will have major impacts on both the local community and the local environment and wildlife in this rural area.

There is will be no economic benefit to be had by the way of employment for the local people, in fact there will be severe detrimental effects on property values and resale potential, trapping local residents in this degraded environment.

The local infrastructure is also unsuitable for such a major project with the MOD already restricting HGV traffic and making it avoid Marham village.

The stated proposal is also extremely over optimistic on the project's overall impact and also on the effectiveness of any mitigating measures for local residents.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92260

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Ms S Gipson

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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: 92263

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Allan Bradley

Representation Summary:

Iwish to lodge myobjection 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, Ifeel that thisdevelopment will have adisproportionateand devastatingimpact 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 outthat the process has not adhered to the principles laid out inNorfolk 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 extractionis 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 Marhamor 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 Marhamwho 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 Leziatetaking 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 PentneyPriory Gatehouse and the unexploredCistercian Nunnery in Marham

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about thedevastating 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.

Full text:

Iwish to lodge myobjection 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, Ifeel that thisdevelopment will have adisproportionateand devastatingimpact 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 outthat the process has not adhered to the principles laid out inNorfolk 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 extractionis 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 Marhamor 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 Marhamwho 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 Leziatetaking 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 PentneyPriory Gatehouse and the unexploredCistercian Nunnery in Marham

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about thedevastating 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: 92264

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Clark

Representation Summary:

I am writing to formally place my objection to the proposal to site SIL 02
becoming an area for silica sand extraction, whether now or at any time in the future.

A change to the environment and landscape such as the one proposed would have an immediate, short term and long term detrimental and devasting effect on the rural communities of Marham and Shouldham.

Indeed, the proposal is already having an immediate and negative effect on our communities as it seems that due information processes about this proposal were not delivered adequately. Residents have had minimal time to properly consider, discuss, research and then respond to this damaging proposal.

However, my OBJECTION

On ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH grounds

Ecology


1. Concern for the detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on surrounding precious sites e.g Bowl Wood (ancient woodland), River Nar & Marham Fen.
2. Concern regarding destruction of breeding habitats, particularly of endangered species, e.g voles, newts, the scarce Emerald Damselfly, Grizzled Skipper moth & Dingy Skipper moth.
3. Concern for birds on the conservation priority red list e.g Nightjar, Woodlark, Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellow Hammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipet and Grey Partridge.
4. Concern for the protected plant species growing in the forest areas adjacent to the area. Some of these are internationally rare and nationally scarce plant species. Impact on flora, fauna and wildlife may not be expected, but cannot be conclusively ruled out.
5. The River Nar SSSI and Core River Valley is adjacent to the proposed site. This outstanding chalk-bed river, and its adjacent terrestrial habitats will be vulnerable. Concern about impacts from mineral extraction including dust deposition and hydrogeology.


Health: noise & dust pollution

1. Marham already has significant noise pollution from the proximity of the village to RAF Marham adjacent to the south of the village.
2. There are unanswered health concerns relating to silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases. Prolonged exposure to silica dust could be a significant risk to the community, particularly the health of the elderly.
3. The impact of the proposed extraction on the local water supply is unknown.
4. There will be noise. Sibelco have presented their most positive interpretation of the effect of this work. Inevitably, standards will fail/fall short. Site working will inevitably create noise and dust and light pollution.
5. The site is a high risk flood area. Extractions will increase that risk further when established drainage ditches are removed.


Damage to infrastructure

1. Local and main roads will be adversely affected by increased traffic, particularly HGVs and heavy plant. Local roads are already in a poor state.
2. Installation for above ground piping by Sibelco to Leziate will create untold damage .
3. A large extraction site would mean this ribbon village of Marham and its community would be completely hemmed in by significant non-rural and damaging activities. We already have the airbase of RAF Marham adjacent to the south of the village.
4. In addition, we also have the large and unsightly Anglian Water/ Sewerage works.

Landscape

1. Negative effect on health and well-being of residents whose present uninterrupted view across the fen landscape to the River Nar will be ruined. A main reason for choosing my home many years ago was the long uninterrupted and peaceful rural view.
2. Negative impact on the open nature of the landscape.
3. Loss of footpaths and Rights of Way. Currently used by many for leisure and health.
4. Negative impact on the Scheduled Monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and Grade 1 Remains of an Augustinian Priory.



Archaeology

1. The significant Historic Environment records of pre-historic to Late Neolithic finds plus other finds from later periods are of singular importance. There is the possibility of an Iron Age settlement and the possibility of other as yet unknown precious archaeological finds.


Finally, the proposal Site SIL 02 land at Shouldham & Marham contains nothing about the devastating effect of this development on the two rural communities of Shouldham & Marham. The legacy could be damaged health and quality of life of humans, animals and plants. The destruction of a site that could be abandoned as an industrial wasteland or used for landfill.

Full text:

I am writing to formally place my objection to the proposal to site SIL 02
becoming an area for silica sand extraction, whether now or at any time in the future.

A change to the environment and landscape such as the one proposed would have an immediate, short term and long term detrimental and devasting effect on the rural communities of Marham and Shouldham.

Indeed, the proposal is already having an immediate and negative effect on our communities as it seems that due information processes about this proposal were not delivered adequately. Residents have had minimal time to properly consider, discuss, research and then respond to this damaging proposal.

However, my OBJECTION

On ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH grounds

Ecology


1. Concern for the detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on surrounding precious sites e.g Bowl Wood (ancient woodland), River Nar & Marham Fen.
2. Concern regarding destruction of breeding habitats, particularly of endangered species, e.g voles, newts, the scarce Emerald Damselfly, Grizzled Skipper moth & Dingy Skipper moth.
3. Concern for birds on the conservation priority red list e.g Nightjar, Woodlark, Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellow Hammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipet and Grey Partridge.
4. Concern for the protected plant species growing in the forest areas adjacent to the area. Some of these are internationally rare and nationally scarce plant species. Impact on flora, fauna and wildlife may not be expected, but cannot be conclusively ruled out.
5. The River Nar SSSI and Core River Valley is adjacent to the proposed site. This outstanding chalk-bed river, and its adjacent terrestrial habitats will be vulnerable. Concern about impacts from mineral extraction including dust deposition and hydrogeology.


Health: noise & dust pollution

1. Marham already has significant noise pollution from the proximity of the village to RAF Marham adjacent to the south of the village.
2. There are unanswered health concerns relating to silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases. Prolonged exposure to silica dust could be a significant risk to the community, particularly the health of the elderly.
3. The impact of the proposed extraction on the local water supply is unknown.
4. There will be noise. Sibelco have presented their most positive interpretation of the effect of this work. Inevitably, standards will fail/fall short. Site working will inevitably create noise and dust and light pollution.
5. The site is a high risk flood area. Extractions will increase that risk further when established drainage ditches are removed.


Damage to infrastructure

1. Local and main roads will be adversely affected by increased traffic, particularly HGVs and heavy plant. Local roads are already in a poor state.
2. Installation for above ground piping by Sibelco to Leziate will create untold damage .
3. A large extraction site would mean this ribbon village of Marham and its community would be completely hemmed in by significant non-rural and damaging activities. We already have the airbase of RAF Marham adjacent to the south of the village.
4. In addition, we also have the large and unsightly Anglian Water/ Sewerage works.

Landscape

1. Negative effect on health and well-being of residents whose present uninterrupted view across the fen landscape to the River Nar will be ruined. A main reason for choosing my home many years ago was the long uninterrupted and peaceful rural view.
2. Negative impact on the open nature of the landscape.
3. Loss of footpaths and Rights of Way. Currently used by many for leisure and health.
4. Negative impact on the Scheduled Monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and Grade 1 Remains of an Augustinian Priory.



Archaeology

1. The significant Historic Environment records of pre-historic to Late Neolithic finds plus other finds from later periods are of singular importance. There is the possibility of an Iron Age settlement and the possibility of other as yet unknown precious archaeological finds.


Finally, the proposal Site SIL 02 land at Shouldham & Marham contains nothing about the devastating effect of this development on the two rural communities of Shouldham & Marham. The legacy could be damaged health and quality of life of humans, animals and plants. The destruction of a site that could be abandoned as an industrial wasteland or used for landfill.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92265

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs G Flack

Representation Summary:

Iwish to lodge myobjection 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, Ifeel that thisdevelopment will have adisproportionateand devastatingimpact 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 outthat the process has not adhered to the principles laid out inNorfolk 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 extractionis 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 Marhamor 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 Marhamwho 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 Leziatetaking 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 PentneyPriory Gatehouse and the unexploredCistercian Nunnery in Marham

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about thedevastating 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.

Full text:

Iwish to lodge myobjection 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, Ifeel that thisdevelopment will have adisproportionateand devastatingimpact 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 outthat the process has not adhered to the principles laid out inNorfolk 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 extractionis 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 Marhamor 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 Marhamwho 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 Leziatetaking 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 PentneyPriory Gatehouse and the unexploredCistercian Nunnery in Marham

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about thedevastating 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: 92266

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Shouldham parish council

Representation Summary:

As Shouldham Parish Clerk, I have been actioned to inform you of the Parish Council's objection to the above proposal. This decision was reached at the last Extra-Ordinary meeting of the Parish Council held on 6 August 2018.

The Parish Council's objections are based on the following grounds:

- The loss of landscape and amenity would be obtrusive and detrimental to the visual amenity of the area as a whole.
- Concern about what will happen to the quarry sites afterwards - will the landscape be restored sympathetically?
- What will the impact of the dredging lakes be in the area - particularly regarding the attraction of birds to the area and the potential for bird strikes on aircraft from RAF Marham?
- Impact of the construction of site infrastructure such as pipelines and access roads.
- Potential for heavy road traffic and the construction of access roads and routes.
- Dust and noise from the extraction area - and its potential health impacts.
- Increased light pollution in the area.
- Impact on listed buildings/monuments in the area.
- Destruction of habitat and SSI's, together with the impact on wildlife.

Full text:

As Shouldham Parish Clerk, I have been actioned to inform you of the Parish Council's objection to the above proposal. This decision was reached at the last Extra-Ordinary meeting of the Parish Council held on 6 August 2018.

The Parish Council's objections are based on the following grounds:

- The loss of landscape and amenity would be obtrusive and detrimental to the visual amenity of the area as a whole.
- Concern about what will happen to the quarry sites afterwards - will the landscape be restored sympathetically?
- What will the impact of the dredging lakes be in the area - particularly regarding the attraction of birds to the area and the potential for bird strikes on aircraft from RAF Marham?
- Impact of the construction of site infrastructure such as pipelines and access roads.
- Potential for heavy road traffic and the construction of access roads and routes.
- Dust and noise from the extraction area - and its potential health impacts.
- Increased light pollution in the area.
- Impact on listed buildings/monuments in the area.
- Destruction of habitat and SSI's, together with the impact on wildlife.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92267

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Stephenson

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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: 92272

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Danielle Wales

Representation Summary:

I would like to lodge an OBJECTION to proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred site for silica sand extraction on the following grounds:


1 This area lies adjacent to the village of Marham which would be greatly affected by this development over a number of decades with a devaluing of house prices and no obvious gains for the village or its residents.

2. The increased and unsuitable effects of industrial, HGV and works traffic on what are unsuitable roads. These roads would be impossibly difficult to widen due to the margins and the close proximity of ditches bordering the site. Whilst it suggested that eventually pipes would take the extracted sand to another site at Leziate, this would take many years to provide and necessitate a great deal of roadworks and adverse affects to local trunk roads, whilst affecting many neighbouring areas and villages over a long period of time. NB. At present the RAF have been prohibited from accessing the base through the village which sets precedence in this aspect. An alternative access through Shouldham village would likewise, be unsuitable.

2. The health risks associated with silica sand and its potential threat to villagers would be very difficult to mitigate and guarantee and would create undue anxiety and increased pressure on a burdened health service locally.

3. The environmental effects on the site which at present support large colonies of birds ie. plovers, oyster catches and other wildlife would be irrevocably affected.

The area also runs parallel to the River Nar and the obvious implications of pollution, would affect the river system and its ecology and its designation SSSI and Core River Valley status. The demolition of the ancient drainage system which runs across this site would further affect the environment both from ecological and flood risk aspects.

4. It would also affect the Public's access to the Nar Valley Way and necessitate a diversion outside the 100m permitted.

5. This site also is the location of a rich archeological history from Pre-historical to Medieval which would be compromised by the development.

Overall the landscape would irrevocably be altered to great detriment to the area and the local villages and residents within.

Full text:

I would like to lodge an OBJECTION to proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred site for silica sand extraction on the following grounds:


1 This area lies adjacent to the village of Marham which would be greatly affected by this development over a number of decades with a devaluing of house prices and no obvious gains for the village or its residents.

2. The increased and unsuitable effects of industrial, HGV and works traffic on what are unsuitable roads. These roads would be impossibly difficult to widen due to the margins and the close proximity of ditches bordering the site. Whilst it suggested that eventually pipes would take the extracted sand to another site at Leziate, this would take many years to provide and necessitate a great deal of roadworks and adverse affects to local trunk roads, whilst affecting many neighbouring areas and villages over a long period of time. NB. At present the RAF have been prohibited from accessing the base through the village which sets precedence in this aspect. An alternative access through Shouldham village would likewise, be unsuitable.

2. The health risks associated with silica sand and its potential threat to villagers would be very difficult to mitigate and guarantee and would create undue anxiety and increased pressure on a burdened health service locally.

3. The environmental effects on the site which at present support large colonies of birds ie. plovers, oyster catches and other wildlife would be irrevocably affected.

The area also runs parallel to the River Nar and the obvious implications of pollution, would affect the river system and its ecology and its designation SSSI and Core River Valley status. The demolition of the ancient drainage system which runs across this site would further affect the environment both from ecological and flood risk aspects.

4. It would also affect the Public's access to the Nar Valley Way and necessitate a diversion outside the 100m permitted.

5. This site also is the location of a rich archeological history from Pre-historical to Medieval which would be compromised by the development.

Overall the landscape would irrevocably be altered to great detriment to the area and the local villages and residents within.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92273

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Virginia Scott

Representation Summary:

This letter is to lodge my wholehearted objection to the proposed site SIL 02 for silica Sand extraction.
I agree with everything laid out in the letter sent to Planning Services on the 12th August regarding this matter.
Apart from the fact that my daughter and family live in Shouldham Warren and are completely devastated at the thought that this would ever be a possibility as indeed my husband and I and everyone who has visited Shouldham..but as an environmentalist the thought of the destruction of habitat for wildlife is simply unacceptable.
The people most likely to be affected by this proposal should have had more time to take action...
Recycle more glass...

Full text:

This letter is to lodge my wholehearted objection to the proposed site SIL 02 for silica Sand extraction.
I agree with everything laid out in the letter sent to Planning Services on the 12th August regarding this matter.
Apart from the fact that my daughter and family live in Shouldham Warren and are completely devastated at the thought that this would ever be a possibility as indeed my husband and I and everyone who has visited Shouldham..but as an environmentalist the thought of the destruction of habitat for wildlife is simply unacceptable.
The people most likely to be affected by this proposal should have had more time to take action...
Recycle more glass...

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92276

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mr David Bignell

Representation Summary:

Historically access to the River Nar, the Nar Valley Way and the historical grounds of Pentney Abbey have been via a legal right of way (designated footpath). The route is detailed Ordnance Survey Map 236 Kings Lynn, Downham Market & Swaffham picture attached, path highlighted in blue. Within 20 minutes Nar Valley Way can be accessed from the southern end of the village across the beautiful Fen countryside.

This is a popular and legally recognised throughfare, that judging by the outline plan, will cease to exist if the proposal is accepted.

I formally object on behalf of all the villagers that this right of access is denied, and question this decision from a moral and legal standpoint.

There is no other alternative footpath, access via Spring Lane and Shouldham Warren is significantly longer, and has no footpath so is not safe. At the opposing end of the village access is also significantly longer with stretches of the route again with no footpath.

To deny Marham villagers access to the historical Nar Valley Way via this direct, safe and beautiful pathway is unacceptable at best, illegal at worst and completely immoral by any standard.

Full text:

Historically access to the River Nar, the Nar Valley Way and the historical grounds of Pentney Abbey have been via a legal right of way (designated footpath). The route is detailed Ordnance Survey Map 236 Kings Lynn, Downham Market & Swaffham picture attached, path highlighted in blue. Within 20 minutes Nar Valley Way can be accessed from the southern end of the village across the beautiful Fen countryside.

This is a popular and legally recognised throughfare, that judging by the outline plan, will cease to exist if the proposal is accepted.

I formally object on behalf of all the villagers that this right of access is denied, and question this decision from a moral and legal standpoint.

There is no other alternative footpath, access via Spring Lane and Shouldham Warren is significantly longer, and has no footpath so is not safe. At the opposing end of the village access is also significantly longer with stretches of the route again with no footpath.

To deny Marham villagers access to the historical Nar Valley Way via this direct, safe and beautiful pathway is unacceptable at best, illegal at worst and completely immoral by any standard.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92282

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Svetlana Ignatieva

Representation Summary:

I wish to record my strong objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
This development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on our community, residents' health and wellbeing, and the environment. The massive size and the site and the timescales involved place an excessive and unacceptable burden on one village, which is already under strain from a growing airbase.
I would also like to put on record that the process was not compliant with the principals laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents of Marham were completely unaware of these plans, despite them being in development since 2015. There has been no communication from Norfolk County Council, the Borough Council, nor Marham Parish Council, which leads me to believe that information was deliberately withheld to benefit vested interests. The process has been entirely non-transparent and possibly corrupt. Marham Parish Council failed to inform their constituency or consult with residents prior to making 'objections' on their behalf, and their 'objections' fall very short of reflecting the extent of residents' concerns.
In particular, my objections are based on the following grounds:
Noise and light pollution - the village of Marham is already adversely affected by the additional noise and light pollution from the RAF Marham becoming the operational base for the new F-35 jets in addition to the existing Tornado Jets. The Anglian Water Treatment Works generates 24 hour noise and considerable light pollution. The noise from the mining operations, particularly during excavation phase, would severely affect the quiet enjoyment and welfare of Marham residents. Specifically, my family residence at Chapel House is located less than 400m from the proposed site, on the western boundary and would be subject to unacceptable levels of noise due to prevailing westerly winds.
Dust - the planning document states that "adverse impacts of dust from sand extraction are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generating activities". If this assertion were true, it is not clear why sand dust from the Sahara regularly travels thousands of miles to the UK? If dust were not an issue, why would 'dust deposition' impact need to be further assessed on the River Nar SSSI and adjacent County Wildlife Sites? The plan deliberately understates the issue of dust and uses an arbitrary distance of 250m for unsubstantiated assertions that beyond this distance dust impacts are 'uncommon'. I believe dust would be a serious issue for Chapel House due to the proximity and the prevailing westerly winds. I am very concerned about health implications of silica dust on my family and elderly family members.
Landscape impacts and views - the mine would have unacceptable landscape impacts, particularly in relation to views from Marham and Squires Hill and from Nar Valley Way public footpath, including views from Pentney Abbey - a Scheduled Monument. The proposed development would be visually detrimental from these viewpoints. Marham is in an elevated position relative to the proposed site - bunds or screening will be intrusive in their own right. The site would be directly visible from the second floor of Chapel House which currently enjoys unobstructed views all the way to River Nar.
Nar Valley Way is one of the main walking arteries that brings tourists to the area, advertised by the Norfolk Council as "An enjoyable walk along the south bank of the River Nar, with beautiful landscape views, and historic interest along the way". There are a number of Public Right of Ways within or adjacent to the site, which would be either lost entirely or degraded. Village residents, including me, use the public footpath to the river and Nar Valley Way on a daily basis.
The Parish Council response mentions that "the quarry sites will be used as landfill, which is a concern due to the inappropriate current regulations of the Landfill Directive." No further explanation or assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future and is a major concern.
Environmental and biodiversity impacts - the plans state that the SSSI within the Impact Zone will not be affected 'as long as no dewatering is proposed' - it is not clear how no dewatering will occur if the plan is to pipe millions of tons of sand mixed in water out of the area? For mineral extractions to be acceptable within a Core River Valley proposals need to demonstrate that they will result in landscape enhancement on restoration. The fact that the mining company hasn't made any suggestions on restoration or how biodiversity will be protected, leads me to believe there is no intention to remedy the harm caused. These fears are exacerbated by the appalling state of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate. An owl box in the roof of Chapel House is inhabited by a family of protected Barn Owls, and the proposed site will deprive them of hunting grounds. I strongly object to the development on the grounds of harm to the environment and biodiversity habitat loss.
Unsuitable roads - while the proposal is to use a pipeline to transport sand form the site, the construction phase will require the movement of HGV on the narrow rural
and village lanes that are entirely unsuitable for heavy machinery. Chapel House is located on the double bend of The Street, less than a 2 meters from the road, and would be affected by the noise and pollution from any heavy machinery or additional traffic.
Economic impacts - while the Sibelco and the landowner stand to make substantial profits from this enterprise, there is no economic upside for Mahram residents. There will be no job creation or enhancement to infrastructure. The mine will result in adverse impact on house prices in the area - the residents will require compensation commensurate with the devaluation of house prices, increase in insurance costs, and loss of ecosystem services.
Flood risk - the majority of the area is within a high risk Flood Zone. While Sibelco asserts that their operations are 'Water compatible', the Environment Agency stated that development should be subject to a Flood Risk Assessment being carried out which demonstrates that the proposal does not result in a unacceptable flood risk to the site itself and without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Many of the houses in Marham, including Chapel House, are located below sea level, and are subject to flood risk.
Heritage - the proximity of the site to a number of heritage assets will have an unacceptable impact on the character of the historic environment. While Chapel House is not a Scheduled Monument, it is a prominent feature building constructed in 1836 and has an important place in the history of the village.
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses my concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. The past few days since this came to light have caused unacceptable levels of stress and anxiety to me, my family and my neighbours. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit. The consultation process has been entirely non-transparent and only served the interests of parties who are due to benefit. Trust and confidence in due process and safeguarding of residents' interests have been seriously breached and will require remedy.

Full text:

I wish to record my strong objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
This development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on our community, residents' health and wellbeing, and the environment. The massive size and the site and the timescales involved place an excessive and unacceptable burden on one village, which is already under strain from a growing airbase.
I would also like to put on record that the process was not compliant with the principals laid out in Norfolk County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents of Marham were completely unaware of these plans, despite them being in development since 2015. There has been no communication from Norfolk County Council, the Borough Council, nor Marham Parish Council, which leads me to believe that information was deliberately withheld to benefit vested interests. The process has been entirely non-transparent and possibly corrupt. Marham Parish Council failed to inform their constituency or consult with residents prior to making 'objections' on their behalf, and their 'objections' fall very short of reflecting the extent of residents' concerns.
In particular, my objections are based on the following grounds:
Noise and light pollution - the village of Marham is already adversely affected by the additional noise and light pollution from the RAF Marham becoming the operational base for the new F-35 jets in addition to the existing Tornado Jets. The Anglian Water Treatment Works generates 24 hour noise and considerable light pollution. The noise from the mining operations, particularly during excavation phase, would severely affect the quiet enjoyment and welfare of Marham residents. Specifically, my family residence at Chapel House is located less than 400m from the proposed site, on the western boundary and would be subject to unacceptable levels of noise due to prevailing westerly winds.
Dust - the planning document states that "adverse impacts of dust from sand extraction are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generating activities". If this assertion were true, it is not clear why sand dust from the Sahara regularly travels thousands of miles to the UK? If dust were not an issue, why would 'dust deposition' impact need to be further assessed on the River Nar SSSI and adjacent County Wildlife Sites? The plan deliberately understates the issue of dust and uses an arbitrary distance of 250m for unsubstantiated assertions that beyond this distance dust impacts are 'uncommon'. I believe dust would be a serious issue for Chapel House due to the proximity and the prevailing westerly winds. I am very concerned about health implications of silica dust on my family and elderly family members.
Landscape impacts and views - the mine would have unacceptable landscape impacts, particularly in relation to views from Marham and Squires Hill and from Nar Valley Way public footpath, including views from Pentney Abbey - a Scheduled Monument. The proposed development would be visually detrimental from these viewpoints. Marham is in an elevated position relative to the proposed site - bunds or screening will be intrusive in their own right. The site would be directly visible from the second floor of Chapel House which currently enjoys unobstructed views all the way to River Nar.
Nar Valley Way is one of the main walking arteries that brings tourists to the area, advertised by the Norfolk Council as "An enjoyable walk along the south bank of the River Nar, with beautiful landscape views, and historic interest along the way". There are a number of Public Right of Ways within or adjacent to the site, which would be either lost entirely or degraded. Village residents, including me, use the public footpath to the river and Nar Valley Way on a daily basis.
The Parish Council response mentions that "the quarry sites will be used as landfill, which is a concern due to the inappropriate current regulations of the Landfill Directive." No further explanation or assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future and is a major concern.
Environmental and biodiversity impacts - the plans state that the SSSI within the Impact Zone will not be affected 'as long as no dewatering is proposed' - it is not clear how no dewatering will occur if the plan is to pipe millions of tons of sand mixed in water out of the area? For mineral extractions to be acceptable within a Core River Valley proposals need to demonstrate that they will result in landscape enhancement on restoration. The fact that the mining company hasn't made any suggestions on restoration or how biodiversity will be protected, leads me to believe there is no intention to remedy the harm caused. These fears are exacerbated by the appalling state of other Sibelco sites, such as Bawsey and Leziate. An owl box in the roof of Chapel House is inhabited by a family of protected Barn Owls, and the proposed site will deprive them of hunting grounds. I strongly object to the development on the grounds of harm to the environment and biodiversity habitat loss.
Unsuitable roads - while the proposal is to use a pipeline to transport sand form the site, the construction phase will require the movement of HGV on the narrow rural
and village lanes that are entirely unsuitable for heavy machinery. Chapel House is located on the double bend of The Street, less than a 2 meters from the road, and would be affected by the noise and pollution from any heavy machinery or additional traffic.
Economic impacts - while the Sibelco and the landowner stand to make substantial profits from this enterprise, there is no economic upside for Mahram residents. There will be no job creation or enhancement to infrastructure. The mine will result in adverse impact on house prices in the area - the residents will require compensation commensurate with the devaluation of house prices, increase in insurance costs, and loss of ecosystem services.
Flood risk - the majority of the area is within a high risk Flood Zone. While Sibelco asserts that their operations are 'Water compatible', the Environment Agency stated that development should be subject to a Flood Risk Assessment being carried out which demonstrates that the proposal does not result in a unacceptable flood risk to the site itself and without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Many of the houses in Marham, including Chapel House, are located below sea level, and are subject to flood risk.
Heritage - the proximity of the site to a number of heritage assets will have an unacceptable impact on the character of the historic environment. While Chapel House is not a Scheduled Monument, it is a prominent feature building constructed in 1836 and has an important place in the history of the village.
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses my concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come. The past few days since this came to light have caused unacceptable levels of stress and anxiety to me, my family and my neighbours. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit. The consultation process has been entirely non-transparent and only served the interests of parties who are due to benefit. Trust and confidence in due process and safeguarding of residents' interests have been seriously breached and will require remedy.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92284

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Margaret Freedman

Representation Summary:

I am writing to object to the proposed silica sand excavations in the Shouldham and Marham area.
There will be an unacceptable increase in noise, dust and light pollution and definite health risks as a result of prolonged exposure to silica dust. There will also be flood risks involved. I am also very concerned about the destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species and detrimental impacts on the River Nar and on the open nature of the landscape. Its proximity to the various scheduled monuments and to the conservation area of Shouldham in which I live is also a matter of real concern.
The proposed site is huge and totally inappropriate. I hope that you will reject any proposals for its development.

Full text:

I am writing to object to the proposed silica sand excavations in the Shouldham and Marham area.
There will be an unacceptable increase in noise, dust and light pollution and definite health risks as a result of prolonged exposure to silica dust. There will also be flood risks involved. I am also very concerned about the destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species and detrimental impacts on the River Nar and on the open nature of the landscape. Its proximity to the various scheduled monuments and to the conservation area of Shouldham in which I live is also a matter of real concern.
The proposed site is huge and totally inappropriate. I hope that you will reject any proposals for its development.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92286

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Enid Wilson

Representation Summary:

I would like to strongly protest this plan for the Marham and Shouldham area , for many reasons . The destruction of ancient meadows and marshland which will NEVER be returned to original use , more likely landfill , contamination of the river Nar is more than likely. We have enough issues with the new runway at RAF Marham without more.

Full text:

I would like to strongly protest this plan for the Marham and Shouldham area , for many reasons . The destruction of ancient meadows and marshland which will NEVER be returned to original use , more likely landfill , contamination of the river Nar is more than likely. We have enough issues with the new runway at RAF Marham without more.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92287

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Harold Stephenson

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.