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

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 personal objection is based on the following grounds:

Throughout the time I have lived in the village the traffic, noise and population has increased and I do not feel the village should now be subject to yet more development. The proposed site is used by the whole village and also by the neighbouring villages of Narborough, Fincham and Shouldham due to the landscape, wildlife, walking and safe cycling routes off the main road.


Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health/Safety & Environment

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






Economic

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

Local Infrastructure

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

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

Landscape

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


Archaeology

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

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

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

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to this plan going ahead for all the reasons already raised by other parishioners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe Norfolk County Council has failed to adequately safeguard the interests of residents, especially those vulnerable residents, affected by the process and in doing so, have invalidated the findings of this initial consultation.

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

I would also strongly protest at the shameful way in which the consultation was carried out. Norfolk County Council (NCC) invested the bare minimum of effort to inform affected residents, request feedback or facilitate objections and comments.

Indeed, from the very outset, it would appear that NCC's efforts have instead been focused on confusing residents, hiding information, providing contradicting advice, creating uncertainty around deadlines and possible extensions. It would seem that deadlines have been specifically planned to coincide with a period when maximum disruption and frustration would ensue for residents seeking advice, clarity and assurance from those charged with safeguarding our interests.

Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that NCC has wilfully made a complete mockery of the spirit of the very rules designed to protect members of its constituency from the kind of underhand and distressing behaviour we are currently being subjected to. Certainly, NCC's conduct fails, by some considerable margin, to come even remotely close to adhering with the principles laid down in its own, existing, "Statement of Community Involvement".

I would also strongly reject any suggestion that my objection can be attributed to nimbyism. 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, and increasingly disruptive RAF airbase of growing national strategic importance.

I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which doesn't downplay, but completely ignores the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in the development.

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

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

Health/Safety & Environment

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

Economic

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

Local Infrastructure

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

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



Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

My own home is situated less than 400m away from the proposed site and currently enjoys unobstructed views all the way to the River Nar. The proposed site and the prevailing winds will ensure that noise and silica dust will become a daily issue and mean that we will not be able to have windows open on the western side of the property.

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.

The main reason for my objection is that I have a family property in Marham which will be directly affected by the proposal being very close to the site. Not only will the proposal directly impact the future value of the property, but it will also destroy the outlook for my Stepfather, who plans to retire there in the near future.
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand
extraction.
I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this
development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already
affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.
I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case
scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and
the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in
the development.
I would also like to point out that the process has not adhered to the principles laid out in Norfolk
County Council's own 'Statement of Community Involvement'. Residents were completely
unaware of these plans, they were not notified of the consultation and had only a few days to
prepare a response ahead of the deadline.
In particular, my objection is based on the following grounds:
Health/Safety & Environment
* Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed
extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human
Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links
to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life,
home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property),
considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.
* Prolonged exposure to silica dust present significant risk to vulnerable members of the
community, particularly the elderly and young, given the village demographics
* No information has been provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water
supply/quality
* No restriction on site working hours is proposed
* This is the only proposal within Norfolk M&WLP that is in a high-risk flood area. Flood risks
are further exacerbated by the removal of ancient drainage ditches
2
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
3
Archaeology
* This area is potentially very rich in archaeological finds, from Pre-Historic to Roman to
Medieval and any undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the project
* Close proximity to Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in
Marham
In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact
the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to
come. No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland
with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.
If you require any clarification of the points raised, we would be happy to discuss the matter
further.

OBJECTION SILICA SAND EXTRACTION SITE (SHOULDHAM & MARHAM -SIL 02)
I am writing to object about the proposal of the potential site for mineral extraction north of Marham and Shouldham.
My concerns are:
1. I chose to buy a house and settle my family in a quiet idyllic village, this proposal will impact on my house value and lifestyle. I use the Warren daily for dog walking and for cycling but this will be affected massively by the loss of footpaths, trees and landscape. Looking into the future, I am worried that the site could then be used for landfill, which of course would be catastrophic.
2. Health impact from the silica dust and noise is not clear but I am concerned for my family with silicosis and respiratory diseases in the long run.
3. Unknown information such as working hours and potential flood risk all add to local residents' anxiety.
4. Increase in traffic -the local trunk roads are bound to be affected and once again this needs more clarity of the volume of traffic increase.
5. Wildlife -as a local primary school teacher, Shouldham Warren is an invaluable resource for 'Forest Schools 'to allow children to explore the woodland and the wide range of wildlife to observe -this will be destroyed with the proposed site.
In summary, whilst I can comment, having researched, on the environment and infrastructural impact your proposal will have on the area as a whole, I can say with certainty it will affect our village as a community. Access and use of the Warren and the peaceful countryside we take for granted by all accounts will be lost. I urge you to consider our objections not against harnessing our natural resources but rather to save the identity of our vibrant Norfolk village.

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Silica Sand Extraction proposal as detailed under SIL 02 and AOS-E (located between Shouldham and Marham villages).
I was unware of this significant planning proposal and feel uneasy with a rushed approached to gather assurances and information before permission is considered. This major industrial site, so close to my residence and leisure space, will clearly have impact to my family.
Areas of Objection in no particular order are:
Scenic Views. The proposed area sits next to the river Nar and Shouldham Warren,
surrounded by prime agriculture land. The introduction of an industrial site in this area will devastate this beautiful views, both during operations and when decommissioned in the future. The area is used by not only villagers by a significant number of people for both walking and our pursuits such a mountain biking. Impact on footpaths and entry and exit to the Warren is unknown.
Environment Pollution. There are no guarantees or assurances of the impact to the village of Shouldham on the pollution this site will generate. This industrial complex will generated dust, noise and light population which has not been quantified accurately. The village's idyllic rural setting will likely be heavily tarnished by the presence of a pollution generating site within such close proximity.
The impact to the beautiful river Nar, the wildlife is all undetermined and at least requires a significate survey to understand the impact.
Financial/ Monetary. The value of property and land in the area is now in freefall, based on the uncertainty of this proposal and its potential impact.
Villagers of both Shouldham and Marham have purchased premium property under the indeed justified assumption it's tranquil and non-industrial surroundings remain intact. The proposed threat to this will certainly affect property values in the foreseeable future.
Vehicle Impact to Shouldham. Access to this site, both during construction and during operations, is unknown. Shouldham village access is extremely limited with narrow roads, a large elderly population and a well-established and increasingly popular primary school. We already suffer from large buses and speeding agriculture vehicles just about navigating their way safely through the village. Apart from the clear logistical and safety issues for the site vehicles, the village and surrounding warren are a popular destination for walkers, cyclists, horse-riders and others wishing to enjoy the countryside. This community would almost certainly be affected by increased traffic.
Unknown Future/ Decommission. The site has a limited period of effective use, the future is unknown and this unsettles the local residences. Although there may be promises of restoring the site back to farm land, this can never be guaranteed. The fear is the area will be turned into a Land Fill site which would have a clearly devastating impact on all.
Heath Concerns. Silica Sand and the particle's in dust are reported to have health
concerns. These concerns need quantifying and local residents require credible
independent assurances that they will not be effected.
Admittedly, I am not a professional on any of the areas listed above, however through research into your project and others I feel it necessary to raise these issues. As a resident of Shouldham for over 15 years, I would be devasted if your proposal lead to the eventual diminishing of vibrant village. Transparency is primarily what us, as residents, require in order to make our individual assessments on what you are proposing. Without the facts, we cannot begin to do so.

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

I would like to formally issue an objection to the proposed Silica extraction SIL-02 at Marham Fen.

Marham village as a collective are already exposed to significant noise pollution from the adjacent RAF Marham airfield and operations. This can be from early morning to late at night. Traditionally from Tornado aircraft flight operations, but recently exacerbated by the introduction of the Lightening F35 squadrons being built up at RAF Marham.

The SIL-02 proposal adds to the noise pollution but also adds to the impact on the immediate environment. Marham village will be effectively stuck between a very busy RAF camp on one side and a Silica extraction site on the other, the village forming a narrow corridor between the two very significant environmental detractors.

Other proposed sites are not impacted by such environmentally extreme operations directly adjacent to their lives. Irrespective of the extent of short term profiteering the SIL-02 operation would deliver to the operating company (with no benefit whatsoever to the local community), it is immoral and unethical to subject a localised community to both of these high impacting 24/7 environmental operations for an estimated 20-25 year period.

There simply must be a viable alternative, that may not be so profitable, but avoids dumping such a heavy environmental burden on a single community.

The negative impact of either operation (disturbed sleep, noise, light and air pollution) is significant but combined places an unacceptable impact on a village of PEOPLE stuck between the two.

The proposed plan and siting if SIL-02 with the intent to replace 390 Hectares of high yielding agricultural farm land with a Silica mine is effectively devaluing the natural and economic contribution this land makes to the local and UK population on a number of specific points:

1. It is recognised by the UK Government that Food production is the single most important commodity and by far the most important business in the world. Everything else is a luxury. The ability of the UK to feed its own population is paramount and has no higher precedent.

Uk.GOV:

"Britain needs to ensure a sustainable supply of food for the UK market and export. Supporting and developing British farming, and encouraging sustainable food production (including fisheries) will ensure a secure, environmentally sustainable and healthy supply of food with improved standards of animal welfare."


The NFU state: "Failing in this objective will leave the country exposed to the volatility of global markets and increases the risks of having to import food produced to lower standards than those required of domestic producers."
Effectively this plan would see a precious and ethically high value commodity (food production) replaced with an ethically much lower value mineral mine. This is in reality an immoral devaluation of the site to suit a short term unsustainable business based on nothing but realising exploitation of a natural occurring mineral for short term profit, that adds no benefit to the local population. The proposal is an absolute contradiction to the government and NFU principles to support agricultural development.


2. The UK is the fourth largest and lowest-cost producer of sugar beet in the EU. Over 4,000 growers grow approximately 7.5 million tonnes of sugar beet each year on just over 100,000 hectares of land, producing half the sugar consumed in the UK. Approximately 75% of this sugar is sold directly to industrial users such as manufacturers of food, soft drinks and confectionery


This fact puts into context the contribution the proposed SIL-02 site makes to the agricultural industry and local economy as a significant producer of Sugar Beet. Once produced the Beet is processed at a nearby plant at Wissington, A local sustainable industry reliant on locally produced beet. It is a significant and sustainable employer and contributor to an important UK based industry.
British Sugar "We are strong supporters of sustainable agriculture and helping farmers continuously improve their sugar beet yields"


The intent to change the significant role the land plays in the local infrastructure devalues the land as a sustainable employer for the local population where rural employment is already constrained. The plan to extract Silica is based on nothing but realising short term exploitation of a natural occurring mineral at the expense of the local people, their sustainable local industry and the significant contribution that industry delivers to the wider economy.


3. The Silica extraction is a very short term unsustainable 20 year mining exercise that will negatively and permanently transform land use. If the decision is made to proceed then that same decision will end farming of that land forever as it will not be left fit for agriculture. This is just short term profiteering that will absolutely end a long term sustainable industry.

Proposed Site SIL 02 As A Preferred Area for Silica Sand Extraction by SIBELCO UK Ltd Behind Spring Lane and Mere Plot Near Marham and Shouldham, Kings Lynn, NORFOLK. AOS E
Please accept this letter as a formal objection to the above.
As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most other residents, was totally unaware or advised of such a scheme until a neighbour informed me of it a few days ago. Apparently only 10 letters were sent out to properties closest to the site. It also appears that this plan has been discussed by the County Council for over three years. The consultation period for this development ends in the next few days giving the residents of Marham and Shouldham minimal time to review and comment on such a scheme. Considering the size and nature of this planned development this is totally unacceptable and unprofessional. Why have we not been made aware of this plan earlier?
Marham is small, quiet village with a huge sense of community spirit and interest in our beautiful and hitherto unspoilt surroundings. We have links with the RAF base in Upper Marham.
Fortunately a meeting was held by Shouldham Parish Council 06 August 2018 and the following key points identified;
* If approved, the first phase of the project will involve the stripping of all vegetation, soil and clay from the fields to allow quarrying equipment access to the sand below. This will involve the use of heavy duty earth moving equipment.
* The second phase will involve the flooding of the land and dredging on the sand, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No restriction on working hours has been planned. There are also concerns as this type of dredging has not been carried out by Sibelco in the UK before.
* Planned start date 2026 for a period in excess of 20 years.
The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues
a. Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated.
b. Mow Fen, a country Wildlife site, is located within this area.
c. The Carbon Footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Nearly 400 hectares of good quality agricultural farmland will be lost forever at a time where, as a nation, we need to be considering growing more crops.
d. Any screening or binding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and the views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?
2. Health and safety
The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues.
Smaller particles of sand and dust will travel long distances and easily reach properties in Marham and Shouldham. This area of land is extremely flat with no natural barriers to slow or prevent the movement of dust and fine particles from the site to the adjacent properties. The effects of this on the health of the elderly, asthma sufferers and those with breathing issues will be significant.
The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm
Silica is the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. Heavy and prolonged exposure to RCS can cause lung cancer and other serious respiratory diseases. HSE commissioned estimates it was responsible for the death of over 500 construction workers in 2005. In addition to the risks from lung cancer, silica is also linked to other serious lung diseases:
* Silicosis can cause severe breathing problems and increases the risk of lung infections. Silicosis usually follows exposure to RCS over many years, but extremely high exposures can cause acute silicosis more quickly.
* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a group of lung diseases including bronchitis and emphysema. It results in severe breathlessness, prolonged coughing and chronic disability. It can be very disabling and is a leading cause of death.
The NHS website also states; www.nhs.uk/conditions/silicosis/
Silicosis
Silicosis is a long-term lung disease caused by inhaling large amounts of crystalline silica dust, usually over many years.
Silica is a substance naturally found in certain types of stone, rock, sand and clay. Working with these materials can create a very fine dust that can be easily inhaled. Once inside the lungs, the dust particles are attacked by the immune system.
This causes swelling (inflammation) and gradually leads to areas of hardened and scarred lung tissue (fibrosis). Lung tissue that's scarred in this way doesn't function properly.
People who work in the following industries are particularly at risk:
* stone masonry and stone cutting - especially with sandstone
* construction and demolition - as a result of exposure to concrete and paving materials
* pottery, ceramics and glass manufacturing
* mining and quarrying
* sand blasting
3. Noise, dust and light pollution
The area under consideration is extremely flat with no natural noise, light or dust barriers. The entire site will be visible to the majority of the residents of Marham due to Marham being on higher ground than the proposed site. Screening will, therefore, be ineffective or so tall as to block all views across the Fen from both Marham and Shouldham. There is no Bunding large enough to provide a barrier against the noise and light pollution this work will cause. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable.
Also and not withstanding, residents of Marham are now subject to extremely loud noise from the new RAF aircraft F35 and this is set to become more and more frequent as new planes arrive. Practive flying and actual flights case huge amount of noise pollution which is already unacceptable and despite assurances from Sibelco quarrying in the manner described in not silent and the facilitation of such a site will certainly not be so. Also the planes fly about the area concerned and large amounts of water will attract significant amounts of bird life therefore likely to collide with expensive RAG planes at the cost of possibly human and certainly bird life.
4. Access to site
The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing an overland pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing after wet dredging but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping to prepare the site for each new dredge. Neither has consideration been given to the lack of appropriate roads for the necessary plant and HGV that would be required to transport the raw material to the Leziate processing plant should it be decided to dry dredge the site instead.
5. The Water Table/ Flood plain
a. The majority of the land under review is currently part of a HIGH RISK flood plain. The plan by Sibelco is to flood this area in order to dredge the sand. This will only increase the chance of future flooding in the area in the absence of the flood plain. Any Bunding and piles of surface soil and clay will only reduce the natural flow of water and increase the risk of flooding further.
b. Anglian Water have a sewage pumping station in close proximity to the site. They also have a number of bore holes across Marham Fen for the extraction of clean water. How will these be affected by the plan?
c. Concerns have already been expressed and documented by the Council on a restoration plan after the 20 year period involving the creation of a lake and wetlands. The concern is the increase in birds and wild fowl resulting in potential bird strikes on aircraft in close proximity to RAF Marham, with the risk of a major catastrophe from an aircraft crashing into a local built up area. The initial flooding of the land tor the dredging will also cause this issue.
6. Value to the community.
a. What is the value of such a project to the local community and Britain? Sibelco is not a British company, its head offices are based in Belgium. The value of this type of sand is extremely high and profits made from the sale of this material will be of great value to BELGIUM and not the UK.
b. There will also be no job benefits to the local community as the manpower required to run the planned dredging operations is less than the current services of those working the land. There will therefore be a reduction in jobs and absolutely no value or benefit of such a scheme to the local community.
7. Property value
This site will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least 28 years. Who wants to live near and look at a Silica sand extraction plant that will be in opened from 2026 and in operation for at least 20 years, possibly longer? We already suffer devaluation due to the RAF and plane noise.
Please accept the above points as a formal objection to the proposed silica sand extraction site SIL 02 proposed by Sibelco UK Ltd

RE: PROPOSED SITE SIL 02 AS A PREFERRED AREA FOR SILICA SAND EXTRACTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: PROPOSED SITE SIL 02 AS A PREFERRED AREA FOR SILICA SAND EXTRACTION

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

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

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.

RE: PROPOSED SITE SIL 02 AS A PREFERRED AREA FOR SILICA SAND EXTRACTION
I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed site SIL 02 as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
I understand the need to provide a future source of silica sand, however, I feel that this development will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.
I would also like to note that the proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on the residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, especially considering the massive size of this site and time scales involved in the development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: PROPOSED SITE SIL 02 AS A PREFERRED AREA FOR SILICA SAND EXTRACTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have considered the consultation document with reference to impacts on air quality. I note that the consultation document contains Development Management Criteria that are relevant when considering air quality impacts:

Policy WM2 in particular states that 'Proposals for minerals development and/or waste management development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact (including cumulative impact in combination with other existing or permitted development) on:
a. Local amenity and health (including noise levels, odour, air quality, dust, litter, light pollution and vibration.'

We would support the wording of this policy especially as it considers cumulative impacts with other development. The discussion section (headed Pollution and Local Amenity Impacts) states thatt detailed controls are exercised through specific pollution prevention and control regimes. However, it should be noted that some mineral activities fall outside of the environmental permitting regime and therefore mitigation under planning system may become necessary as stated in the closing paragraph of this section.

Policy MP6 specifically considers cumulative impacts of mineral sites which are located in close proximity and recommends mitigation. We would support the wording of this policy as other cumulative impacts (from non-mineral sites) are covered by policy WM2.

The consultation document includes two new proposed sites and one 'preferred area':
MIN204 - north of Lodge Rd Feltwell: The report notes that 'The nearest residential property is 21m from the site boundary. There are six sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary. We agree that any planning application for mineral extraction at this site would need to include a dust assessment and mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity or health impacts. This is likely to include a buffer zone due to the proximity of the nearest sensitive receptors.
MIN206 - Oak Field, Tottenhill: The report notes that 'The only residential dwelling within 250m of the site boundary is 243m away. The settlement of Tottenhill is 243m away. We agree that any planning application for mineral extraction at this site would need to include a dust assessment and mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity or health impacts.
SIL02 - land at Shouldham and Marham: This site is considered to be a potential 'Preferred Area' rather than a specific site allocation, from which smaller specific sites could come forward. The nearest residential property is reported to be 81m from the site boundary. There are 10 sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary. However, a buffer area is proposed which would mean that the nearest residential would be 280m from the area. We would agree that the buffer area should be enforced and that any planning application for mineral extraction within the site would need to include a dust assessment and a programme of mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity or health impacts.

Formal Objections as follows:

1. The change in the immediate landscape and accessibility by the local population would be significantly detrimental to the local area, population, visitors and reliant businesses.

2. The subsequent land use after the extraction risk used as a landfill, completely inappropriate and in direct conflict with governing Landfill Policy as detailed in the formal directive.

3. The existing (and only) Public Right of Way that links Marham to The Nar River, Nar Valley Way and Shouldham Warren would be lost. An unacceptable price to pay for a short term unsustainable venture born of nothing but short term profiteering.

4. Freedom of movement for the local population would be unacceptably constrained. Reducing Marham village to a thin corridor stuck between an RAF base and a huge open face mining operation. Completely limiting freedom of movement from the village community to the outlying and immediate countryside.

I look forward to your considered response,

Submission Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Consultation
Thank you for consulting the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in relation to the above referenced consultation document.
DIO Safeguarding main concern when reviewing Mineral and Waste local plan, relates to the proposed site allocations and the restoration/aftercare scheme.
The county of Norfolk has several statutory safeguarding sites within its authority area, these being RAF Lakenheath, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall and RAF Marham.
On reviewing the proposed mineral sites the following occupy statutory birdstrike safeguarding consultation zones for RAF Marham: MIN 19 & 205;76;77;40; SIL01 SIL02; AOS E &J.
Therefore, DIO Safeguarding is concerned with the development of open water bodies, the creation of wetland habitat, refuse and landfill sites. These types of development have the potential to attract large flocking bird species hazardous to aviation safety. Therefore, we would recommend dry restoration and dry phased working.
The following sites MIN 6; MIN 204; MIN 74; MIN 206 and MIN 32 the restoration is dry using inert waste or imported inert materials. If this were to change to wet restoration or there was potential for wet working as part of the extraction scheme, DIO Safeguarding would need to be consulted.
Please note the remaining sites fall outside of the statutory safeguarding areas and we have no concerns regarding these allocations.
Please note the above comments are purely related to the DIO Statutory Safeguarding interests. I trust this adequately explains our position on this matter.

Proposed Silica Sand excavation by Sibelco at Marham / Shouldham
I wish to raise my objection against the above proposal and also express my extreme disgust at the stealthy and secretive way this envisaged development has been planned.
The first knowledge that I and most of the other 46 homes on Plumtree Park had of this proposal was through a letter pushed through my door on Saturday the 4th of August informing us of a public meeting to be held at Shouldham on Monday 6th of August.
I attended that meeting and discovered that this proposal had not been heard about by most of the population of both Shouldham and Marham and the standard reply to most of our questions was that this matter was only at the consultation stage and therefore any objections would be discussed when the actual planning application was submitted.
The Sibelco representative who was there said that although they had many sites for sand and gravel extraction throughout England they did not have one using the same methods as this proposal would use so therefore we could not see a working site to establish actual noise, pollution and environmental issues which would ensue.
When asked whether they had already purchased the land or come to an agreement to purchase upon planning consent we were told that that would obviously have been the first consideration before submitting this scheme but no definative answer.
When asked about "working hours" we were told that they normally worked from 8 am to 6 pm BUT as the dredging machine and pumps did not require an operative they could be running constantly 24/7. This area is a very quiet rural location and any sounds reverberate over great distance and could cause major disturbance.
A parish counselor from Marham said they would be convening a special meeting about this but probably not till October despite the grave concerns of our village.
My final point is that obviously a scheme of this size must have taken many months of planning, consultation and discussions with many people YET we, the people of Marham and Shouldham, have been kept completely in the dark and blindsided by the sudden disclosure.
Sibelco is a Belgium company and should have had the decency to consult initially with the people that will be affected by this scheme but apart from a small statutory notice in the E.D.P which nobody saw they chose to keep this scheme secret till the very last minute.
Will you please acknowledge receipt of this email and keep me informed of any further developments which come to your attention,

Thank you for consulting Norfolk Wildlife Trust on the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review, and for granting us an extension to the consultation period.
Owing to the lack of information that we hold on the ecological value of the wider countryside we have largely restricted our comments to impacts from proposed allocations on County Wildlife Sites and our reserves. In the wider countryside where possible we have made suggestions on restoration proposals based on sites' locations within our Living Landscapes .
Policies
Vision and Objectives
We strongly support the requirement in the Vision for progressive restoration schemes that enhance biodiversity. Equally, we support the positive contribution minerals planning makes to biodiversity improvements in the county promoted in MSO9 and the creation of opportunities for wider public engagement with nature in MSO10.
MW2: We strongly support this policy, which provides important protection for locally designated sites, as well as supporting net gains for biodiversity through planning in section k, which encourages wherever possible that enhancement of the environment will be sought, as per paragraph 170 of the NPPF.
MP 7: We support the restoration requirements included in this policy, in particular the recommendation that sites that are to be restored to agriculture can still include biodiversity enhancements alongside their primary use. We also support the reference to the county's priority habitats and species and recommend that the policy makes further reference in the supporting text to the specific habitats and species that are present in the county for the benefit of plan users.
MP 8: We support the inclusion of an aftercare policy to ensure that restoration habitats are established to a sufficient standard post-extraction.

Sites
Our comments below relate specifically to sites in proximity to our reserves, SSSIs, CWSs and ancient woodland sites.
Where sites are proposed adjacent to or in close proximity to County Wildlife Sites, we strongly recommend that these are only chosen sequentially after other sites have been selected, that they are only taken forward if it can be demonstrated that they are deliverable whilst providing sufficient stand off from the allocation boundary to account for hydrological and dust impacts, that any planning application will be accompanied by an ecological impact assessment and that restoration will be to habitats in support to those existing nearby, for example expanding existing habitats where adjacent and providing greater connectivity in the wider countryside between existing sites. We note that several proposed allocations are situated close to multiple CWS, and in these locations it would be very beneficial to co-ordinate restoration proposals in order to maximise the gains for wildlife through improving landscape scale connectivity. We would be happy to offer further advice on this in later plan consultations, if that would be helpful.

MIN 35: We support the inclusion of nature conservation in the restoration proposals for this site.

MIN 202: We are concerned that this proposed site partially overlaps with CWS 1344, 'Triumph and Foxburrow Plantations'. We recommend that either the allocation boundary is redrawn to avoid the CWS, or that the site policy includes a requirement for a stand-off area around the edge that includes that part that overlaps the CWS. In addition, given the proximity to the CWS, we would expect the site to be worked dry to avoid any impacts on hydrogeology and a stand-off area sufficient to avoid any impacts on the CWS from dust. We support the proposed restoration to a mosaic of acid grassland, woodland and wetland, and also support the Council's recommendation that the site could support new heathland when restored.

MIN 37: We support the Council's restoration recommendations for the inclusion of acid grassland/ heathland on this site, which would complement the nearby CWS 1411 'Disused Gravel Pit', which supports similar habitats.

MIN 76, MIN 206
We support the Council's proposals for conservation led restoration at MIN 76 and the inclusion of wide field margins and hedgerow planting at MIN 206. Given the proximity of these proposals to several CWS, we recommend that co-ordinated restoration to enhance landscape connectivity between all the nearby CWS should be supported in the site policy.

MIN 40: Given the location within a kilometre of East Winch Common SSSI, restoration of this site to heathland has the potential to enhance the connections of the SSSI with the wider landscape. Therefore we support the Council's recommendation that the restoration proposals for this site should include heathland. Additionally, given the proximity to King's Lynn, the site has the potential to support the provision of new green infrastructure.

SIL 01: We are concerned at the proposal to include part of CWS 416 '70 & 100 Plantations' in this allocation and recommend that as part of any mitigation that these areas are not excavated and are safeguarded as part of any restoration proposals. Provided that suitable mitigation can be provided to ensure the CWS are safeguarded, we support the restoration of the site to habitat types similar to the surroundings to provide connectivity and note the potential for the site to provide green infrastructure with links to the nearby country park.

SIL 02: We note the Council identifies SIL 02 as a Preferred Area, within which a smaller area could be subject to an application at a later date. We note the proximity of several CWS to the boundary of SIL 02 and recommend as with all other proposals near CWS that any application would need to demonstrate it could avoid adverse impacts on these sites. We would support any restoration proposals that enhance the landscape connectivity of the CWS network locally.

MIN 69: Whilst we are unable to comment on the wider impacts of this proposal as they are outside of our remit, should this site be progressed, then we strongly support the Council's recommendations that this site should be subject to high quality restoration creating a large new area of heathland with benefits both for wildlife and for green infrastructure provision.

MIN 71: We are concerned about this proposal due to its close proximity to the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC and Holt Lowes SSSI. The plan will need to demonstrate that it would not result in an adverse effect on the SAC in order to demonstrate that it is deliverable, and in addition to any project level HRA that would be required to accompany any planning application. Should the site be considered deliverable in the local plan HRA, then we strongly recommend that the site is restored to nature conservation with public access, given the significant potential the site has to make landscape scale connections with the multiple designated and county wildlife sites in the area, as well as provide valuable new green infrastructure on the edge of Holt.

MIN 115: We note the proximity of this proposal to several CWS, including CWS 1170 'Lord Anson's Wood'. We support the Council's recommendations for ecological assessment to accompany any application, due to the proximity to the CWS as well as for protected species, and also support the restoration recommendations for a mix of deciduous woodland and heathland, to complement the habitats in nearby CWS.

MIN 207, MIN 208, MIN 209, MIN 210, MIN 211, MIN 212, MIN 79, MIN 80
We support the Council's recommendations for restoration to nature conservation after use on these sites.

MIN 25
Provided potential ecological impacts on the nearby CWS 2221, 'Devil's End Meadow' can be avoided, we support the restoration proposals to acid grassland, woodland and wetland.

Other sites
Whilst we hold no specific knowledge on the following sites, we broadly support the restoration proposals proposed for MIN 12, 13, 51, 200 and 65. Additionally, sites 79 and 80 being close to the Norwich growth area may support restoration that includes specifically includes green infrastructure provision.

Proposed sites for removal
We support the Council's proposed to remove the following sites from further consideration in the plan on the grounds of adverse impacts on wildlife sites, namely MIN 102, 201, 48, 45, 19, 205, 74 and 77.
Areas of Search E, F, I, J
We note that in previous iterations of the Minerals plan, it has been considered acceptable to modify Areas of Search to exclude CWS and their immediate surroundings. In order to safeguard multiple CWS from both direct and indirect impacts of minerals extraction, we recommend that similar provisions are made and the Areas of Search are modified to provide sufficient stand off from these CWS to safeguard them from adverse impacts. In particular we note CWS 425 'Mow Fen' which is within AoS E, CWS 424 'Westbrigg's Wood' and CWS 373 'Adj. Adams Plantation' which are both adjacent to AoS E and CWS 365 'Broad Meadow Plantation' which is adjacent to AoS F.

We trust that these comments are helpful. Should you wish to discuss them in any more detail whilst preparing the next iteration of the plan, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Question 1: 'Minerals and Waste Local Plan Vision'
The Vision should refer the provision of minerals supply to be in accordance with and as required by National Policy
Mineral Safeguarding should refer to paragraph 182 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework such that the applicant for adjacent development ('agent of change') should be required to provide suitable mitigation to take account of existing and allocated development.

Question 3: 'Minerals Strategic Objectives'
The following amendments are proposed (in CAPITALS):
MSO2. To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites/areas within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need AND STOCKS OF PERMITTED RESERVES OF SILICA SAND OF AT LEAST 10 YEARS PRODUCTION FOR INDIVIDUAL SILICA SITES AND AT LEAST 15 YEARS FOR SILICA SAND SITES WHERE SIGNIFICANT NEW CAPITAL IS REQUIRED and safeguarding existing infrastructure. (To accord with NPPF 2018 paragraph 208 footnote 68)

MSO4. To safeguard silica sand, carstone, and sand and gravel resources for future use. Avoiding unnecessary sterilisation by encouraging the extraction of minerals prior to other development taking place where practicable and using minerals in construction on the land from which they are extracted. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING ON SAFEGUARDED AREAS OR SITES.

MSO5. To promote the sustainable transport of minerals by rail, road and water, including the safeguarding of railheads and wharfs for the import of minerals to and export of minerals from Norfolk. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING ON SAFEGUARDED SITES.

MSO8. To ensure that mineral development addresses and minimises the impacts it will have on climate change by: REDUCING greenhouse gas emissions during the winning, working and handling of minerals, SEEK TO PROVIDE sustainable patterns of minerals transportation, and WHERE POSSIBLE integrating features consistent with climate change mitigation and adaption into the design of restoration and aftercare proposals.
MSO9. To positively contribute to the natural, built and historic environments with high quality, progressive and expedient restoration to achieve a beneficial after use. The after use will protect and enhance the environment, including landscape and biodiversity improvements.

Comment: the restoration of mineral sites can deliver landforms to facilitate different after uses of land, however mineral planning has no role in the after use of itself.

MSO10. WHERE PRACTICAL to increase public access to the countryside and enhance biodiversity through enhancing the amenity value of land when restoring extraction sites.

Question 4: Policy MW1 'Presumption in favour of sustainable development'
This policy is supported including the recognition in the preamble that the three pillars of sustainability have equal standing.
 
Question 5: Policy MW2 'Development Management Criteria'
Where appropriate AND PRACTICAL, enhancement of the environment would be sought, including, but not exclusively, the enhancement of the Public Rights of Way Network, creation of recreation opportunities and enhancement of the natural, historic and built environment and surrounding landscapes.

Question 6: Policy MW3 'transport'
WHERE PRACTICAL AND REALISTIC measures to reduce car travel to the site by workers and visitors and encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport.

Question 7: Policy MW4 'climate change mitigation and adaption'
b) be planned so as to REDUCE carbon dioxide and methane emissions ON A SITE UNIT BASIS
c) endeavour to SOURCE a minimum of 10 per cent of the energy used on site from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources.
d) WHERE PRACTICAL AND RELEVANT to demonstrate the use of sustainable drainage systems, water harvesting from impermeable surfaces and layouts that accommodate waste water recycling
e) WHERE RELEVANT TO take account of potential changes in climate including rising sea levels and coastal erosion
g) incorporate proposals for sustainable travel, including travel plans where PRACTICAL AND appropriate.

Question 9: Policy MW6 'agricultural soils'
This policy should be applied flexibly since minerals can clearly only be worked where they exist and for silica sand for glass making the potential land is further restricted by virtue of the scarcity of this mineral.

Question 27: Policy MP1 'Provision for minerals extraction'
No as it does not accord with National Policy and is unsound. Suggested wording for silica sand:
STOCKS OF PERMITTED RESERVES for silica sand will be maintained at 10 years' PRODUCTION FOR EACH SILICA SAND SITE. Sufficient sites and/or areas to deliver at least 12,380,000 tonnes of silica sand will be allocated TO THE END OF THE PLAN PERIOD WITH FURTHER PROVISION TO ENSURE A STOCK OF PERMITTED RESERVES BEYOND THE PLAN PERIOD.
In the table on page 63 in the preamble to Policy MP1 is should read:
B Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2016

Question 28: Policy MP2 'Spatial strategy for minerals extraction'
"Within the resource areas identified on the key diagram, specific sites or preferred areas for silica sand extraction should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant and railhead at Leziate via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway routes". This contradicts wording in proposed Policy MP13 and the Single Issue Silica Sand Review of the Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD (adopted in December 2017) which discussed highway routes from Areas of Search to the Leziate processing site.
There should be no buffers applied to the so-called planning constraints. The acceptability or not of approaching such constraints will be a matter for the EIA.
Agricultural land grades 1 and 2 should not be excluded. This contradicts Policy MW6 which should in all circumstances be adopted and applied flexibly.

Question 33: Policy MP7 'Progressive working, restoration and after-use'
After use is noted several times in the policy but after use is not a matter for mineral planning.
There is no mention of restoration to agricultural land
Any important geology or geomorphology on the site will be retained in sample exposures for study purposes ONLY WHERE PRACTICAL AND SAFE TO DO SO

Question 36: Policy MP10 'Safeguarding of port and rail facilities, and facilities for the manufacture of concrete, asphalt and recycled materials'
The 'agent of change' principle will be applied to all development in proximity to safeguarded sites.


Question 37: Policy M11 'Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas'
The 'agent of change' principle will be applied to all development in proximity to safeguarded sites.

Question 67: Proposed Site MIN 40 'land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch'
The site is allocated as a specific site for silica sand extraction in the Adopted in the Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2010-2026 (adopted September 2011) and identified in the Minerals Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) (adopted October 2013, amendments adopted December 2017).

The Initial conclusion on the MIN40 site in the May 2018 consultation document notes that "the site is considered suitable for allocation for silica sand extraction, subject to any planning application addressing the requirements below: [requirements are detailed in the Initial Consultation document]

Sibelco has submitted a planning application for an extension of Grandcourt Quarry into the MIN40 site and has the following comments on some of the "requirements" noted in the Initial Consultation document.

* Opportunities during working for any geodiversity assets to be studied, and if compatible with the landscape and ecology objectives, an open face to be retained as part of the restoration scheme

Sibelco will examine working faces during operation and can take photographic records of any features of note observed, if any. Following extraction being completed in each phase, Carstone material will be used to cover and stabilise the Leziate Sand faces to create safe long term slopes as described in Appendix 9 to the submitted Planning Statement (Geotechnical Design and Assessment).
Opportunities could be afforded during working to geology students to inspect and study open faces and overburden areas under supervision where consistent with health and safety of the site. Bearing in mind the proposed open water restoration with peripheral broadleaved woodland and shrub/grassland it is not been possible to incorporate any open face in the restoration, which would in addition be difficult to maintain safely due to the nature of the geology, which makes it vulnerable to erosion and a potential safety hazard.

* A restoration scheme incorporating heathland or a heathland/arable mix with blocks of woodland which provides biodiversity gains and does not result in permanent dewatering of a perched water table in the carstone aquifer if one is identified in a hydrogeological risk assessment
*
The lodged planning application proposes a combination of restored areas of open water (51.4%), native broadleaved woodland (8.8%), hedgerows (increase of 920 linear metres), scrub & species rich grassland (20.7%), agricultural land (15.2%) and public rights of way for the restored site with biodiversity gains. The hydrogeological assessment of the site showed there were no significant impacts on the perched water table in the Carstone as a result of working and restoration.

The proposed restoration is primarily to water since the excavation will be several metres below the natural groundwater level in order to release the proven mineral. It will not be possible to deliver a dry restoration using on-site overburden materials. For the same reason it will not be possible to deliver a requirement of MIN40, which is to incorporate heathland into the restoration. The proposed site for the former Site Specific Allocations DPD was considerably reduced in area at examination which removed land which may have been suitable for heathland restoration. The much reduced currently allocated area reflects very closely the area of excavation. Once the restored margin areas are accounted for, the remaining area of land restoration is at the lake margins on mostly slopes to the water's edge, which is not suitable for heathland. Significant heathland restoration has been delivered by the Applicant on former mineral sites to the north of Middleton Stop Drain.

The proposed restoration scheme is shown on the submitted restoration drawings. This scheme has been designed with due regard for the precise setting of the site; the local geology; local topography; position of the natural groundwater table and the volumes of different overburden materials identified within the site by drilling programmes.

Policy Min 40 states that a restoration scheme for the site should seek to incorporate heathland or a heathland/arable mix with blocks of woodland which provides biodiversity gains. Given the volumes of sand and overburden materials present and the position of the local groundwater table this is not possible in its entirety in this case.

Sibelco has restored former mineral extraction area locally to heathland (for example Wicken North and Wicken South), however, these areas have very different physical parameters which allowed such restoration to be designed and implemented. Wicken North and Wicken South are located on lower ground and had relatively low sand to overburden ratios which allowed significant areas to be restored to generally level ground above the local groundwater level. Grandcourt Quarry extension is located on higher ground, has a different ratio of sand to overburden (higher ratio) and a different relationship of ground levels to groundwater level. Final restored slopes must be stable in the long term and at the same time utilise only suitable overburden materials from the site (there are no proposals to import any materials from elsewhere to effect the restoration). Tailings materials from the mineral washing (silts and lays) are unsuitable for restoration in this area due to high water content of the tailings and distance from the processing plant. The company has sufficient permitted tailings space elsewhere on the wider site.

The restoration scheme proposed for the extension area in the lodged planning application does include agricultural land, woodland blocks and scrub with a lake of some 9.2 hectares representing the natural groundwater level. The proposed restoration of the MIN40 site reflects the permitted restoration of the existing Grandcourt Quarry site and has been designed to complement and fit in with this overall restoration which is dictated by the geotechnical assessment and local geological circumstances.

The overburden volumes in the Grandcourt extension area and volumes required to restore the site as per the submitted proposed restoration scheme are as follows:

Overburden materials identified by drilling programmes:
Soils 78,000m3
Carstone 1,300,000 m3
Clay 420,000 m3
Material required to create the proposed landform in the MIN40 site:
Material required to create 1:4 slopes on final sand and overburden faces 1,020,000 m3
Material required to create embankment for bridleway and farm access 736,000 m3
Given the material balance for the site as shown above and with no proposal to import any material for restoration or other purposes, the final landform and restoration scheme proposed is the only one which can reasonably be implemented. The MIN40 site is not suitable for heathland restoration.

The submitted Environmental Statement contains a hydrogeological risk assessment which identifies potential impacts on groundwater including the perched water table in the Carstone. The proposed eastern extension will have little or no additional significant impacts to the north, south and west. The area over which drawdown in groundwater levels will occur will increase to the east, but no water sensitive receptors have been identified within the predicted area of influence in this direction. It is proposed that the potential additional impacts to surface and groundwater are monitored and controlled via a minor revision of the existing Water Management Plan.
There is electricity infrastructure within MIN40 site
Subject to the above comments Sibelco supports the inclusion of MIN40 as a Specific Site.

Question 68: Proposed Site SIL 01 'land at Mintlyn South, Bawsey'
Sibelco supports the inclusion of SIL01 as a Specific Site

Question 69: Area of Search AOS E 'land to the north of Shouldham'
Area of Search E
Sibelco supports the inclusion of Area E as an Area of Search for silica sand

Question 73: Policy MP13: 'Areas of Search for silica sand extraction'
Sibelco supports Policy MP13 on Areas of Search for silica sand, subject to our response to Question 9

Question 74: Proposed Site SIL 02 'land at Shouldham and Marham'
Sibelco supports the inclusion of SIL02 as an allocated site and would propose that given the promoters knowledge of the local geology, the site should be allocated as a Specific Site. Further silica sand provision will be required at the end of the Plan period
The National Planning Practice Guidance says:
a) designating Specific Sites - where viable mineral resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms ....

This definition applies to SIL02

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

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.