Question 69: Area of Search AOS E

Object

Representation ID: 91946

Received: 06/08/2018

Respondent: Marham Parish Council

Loss of landscape & amenity would be obtrusive & detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.

Desirability of the adjacent properties, or locality, may affect potential property values.

Quarry sites will be used as landfill which is a concern due to the regulations of the Landfill Directive.

Each quarry site must be reinstated prior to moving onto the next throughout the development.

That a corridor of trees is supplied in Spring Lane, the adjacent landholding.

That the current PROW from the village to the river & Shouldham Warren, is retained as it would be detrimental if this were lost.

Object

Representation ID: 91951

Received: 06/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Sonya Moss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 91974

Received: 07/08/2018

Respondent: Mr A Austin

Also SIL2 overlaps with the AOS Site E to some degree and it is not acceptable that SIL2 is also and AOS Site E because it provides doubt on the validity of SIL2 and really confirms AOS Site E is not a search area but a really long term proposal being put on hold until SIL2 is worked out.

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 91977

Received: 07/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Carly Pontin

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

Object

Representation ID: 91997

Received: 08/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Maureen Austin

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

Object

Representation ID: 92007

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Tina Hawkins

* the loss of landscape and amenity would be obtrusive and detrimental to the visual amenity of the area as a whole.
* desirability of the adjacent properties in question, or the locality, may affect the potential property values, particularly in the stage up to the permission being granted when the uncertainty of whether the sand extraction is to proceed.
* the quarry sites will be used as landfill, which is a concern due to the inappropriate current regulations of the Landfill Directive.
* assurance must be given that each quarry site is reinstated prior to moving onto the next site throughout the development.
* that a corridor of trees is supplied in Spring Lane, the main adjacent landholding to the proposed development.
* that the current Public Right of Way (PRoW), which provides the present link from the village to the river and Shouldham Warren, is retained as it would be detrimental to the village as a whole if this was lost.

Object

Representation ID: 92043

Received: 10/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Mary Maxey Miller

I strongly object to the proposed extraction of silica sand from the beautiful countryside between Shouldham and Marham. Besides blighting a well loved area my main objection is that the silica sand is indispensable in the fracking process. Fracking has disasterous consequences , Shouldham and Marham would become part of the supply chain for this distructive wasteful process.

Comment

Representation ID: 92114

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Natural England

Agree with the conclusions regarding the designated sites.

Object

Representation ID: 92155

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Svetlana Ignatieva

I object to the AOS E Land to the north of Shouldham to be considered for mineral mining. This woodland area provides vital habitat for biodiversity and valuable ecoservices to the communities of Shouldham, Marham, Wormegay and beyond. There are no other woodlands of this size in the vicinity. The Warren provides venue for recreation and nature appreciation , which is essential for mental health and well-being. It is a source of sustainable timber production and local jobs. It a habitat for wildlife and a carbon sink. It is irresponsible to destroy this asset in the interest of short-term exploitation.

Object

Representation ID: 92157

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Alec Seaman

I object to the AOS E Land to the north of Shouldham to be considered for mineral mining. This woodland area provides vital habitat for biodiversity and valuable ecoservices to the communities of Shouldham, Marham, Wormegay and beyond. There are no other woodlands of this size in the vicinity.
The Warren provides venue for recreation and nature appreciation , which is essential for mental health and well-being. It is a source of sustainable timber production and local jobs. It a habitat for wildlife and a carbon sink. It is irresponsible to destroy this asset in the interest of short-term exploitation.

Object

Representation ID: 92169

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Ninham

This beautiful woodland area is an essential space for many species of wildlife, a healthy space for all. It provides a safe area of recreation, cycling, running walking. To commune so closely with nature, the smells and sound of a forest are an essential part of good health and fitness. A place to exercise for those living in close proximity, neighboring villages as far away as Downham Market, Kings Lynn and even further. Along with others this is a space to walk, talk and breath! Don't destroy! so much diverse wildlife, birds are well established. Much would be lost and many people depend on it to maintain mental and physical health. Sustainable timber provides jobs and to mine this area would be irresponsible.

Object

Representation ID: 92170

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Shelagh King

This beautiful woodland area is an essential space for many species of wildlife, a healthy space for all. It provides a safe area of recreation, cycling, running walking. To commune so closely with nature, the smells and sound of a forest are an essential part of good health and fitness. A place to exercise for those living in close proximity, neighboring villages as far away as Downham Market, Kings Lynn and even further. Along with others this is a space to walk, talk and breath! Don't destroy! so much diverse wildlife, birds are well established. Much would be lost and many people depend on it to maintain mental and physical health. Sustainable timber provides jobs and to mine this area would be irresponsible.

Object

Representation ID: 92172

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Angela Walton

Amended objection to include Site AOS E North of Shouldham

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 92175

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Kevin Walton

Amended objection to include Site AOS E North of Shouldham

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 92188

Received: 14/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Brian Ferguson

Preferred Area for Silica Sand Extraction SIL02 and AOS E

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

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

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

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 92194

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wederell

I didn't attend the Parish Council Meeting in Shouldham Village Hall on the 6th August concerning the removal of sand for silica from The Warren but it has since been brought to my notice and I wish to express my deep concerns. We live in a very community minded village and hold a variety of events during the year to give us a very good quality of life and as you are probably aware the village purchased the pub a few years ago which has helped to make Shouldham a very popular place to live. We have a great enthusiasm with regard to our environment and pride ourselves on this.

I have grave concerns that the quarrying in the proposed area has lots of adverse implications.

1. Wild life. The Warren is a lovely peaceful place to walk with the opportunity to .enjoy the flora and the birds and animals. Would this mean deforestation in the area?
2. It is quite an historic area with the remains of Shouldham Priory and interesting Saxon finds. Would this have an impact on this?
3. The threat to recreational activities, not only is The Warren used by many of the villagers on a daily basis, people come from all over to walk, bird watch, horse ride and cycle. There are also many clubs/organisations that use it to enhance their lives. Would this be hindered in any way?
4. Disturbance. The disruption caused by the proposed setting up of the pipelines to enable the removal of the sand etc. The noise of the plant going to and from the site and the access to do this. I live on the road out of Shouldham to the Warren, a country lane and I am very worried that heavy lorries will be using this for access.
5. Health and Safety. Dust and the effort on people's health. We have our fair share of elderly people in the area and this could cause many issues for them. Possible water pollution. Safety of our children if an increase in plant is likely and the over use of small country lanes for long hours of the day. Concerns of 24 hour dredging.
6. Concerns of what will happen to the site when the sand has been removed.

I am sure that you have had many emails concerning this proposal, it does seem to have suddenly been brought to our notice and I am very concerned about the way it has been handled, as if it has been done "under cover".

Object

Representation ID: 92198

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Bradley

Re: Proposed Silica Sand Extraction Sites SIL 02 and AOS E
I wish to object unreservedly regarding the proposal for the above sites for the extraction of silica sand. I appreciate that there will be a need for silica sand in the future, but I firmly believe that this would have a devastating effect, not only on the villages of Marham and Shouldham, but also, on the surrounding environment including the villages of Pentney, Wormegay, Fincham and Narborough. My objections are based on the following grounds:
Health, Safety and Environment:
Firstly, I believe the Sibelco representative to be totally wrong when he stated at a recent meeting that the use of bunding or barriers will ensure that Marham village will not be affected by noise, dust or light from the excavation. I fail to see how this could possibly be effective as Marham is located on an elevated site, so what is now a stunning view of fenland, fields and forest will be permanently destroyed.
The continual 'hum', (the word used by the Sibelco representative) will be totally unacceptable for people who have chosen to live in a rural location. Although residents already experience some aircraft noise from RAF Marham, this only occurs in short bursts and on an irregular basis. Light pollution will also have a disastrous effect on the bats and other nocturnal wildlife which live here and the absolute darkness is another feature enjoyed by many people in the village.
It is a well-known fact that silica dust has close links to silicosis and other respiratory diseases which, therefore, violates residents' rights (European Convention on Human Rights, (Article 2) and there are many particularly vulnerable people residing in these villages.
Ecology: The destruction of such a vast area of fen and agricultural land, would have a devastating effect on the wildlife here at present. This includes voles, newts, moths, damselflies, and many species of birds, including buzzards, red kite and owls. With the diminishing numbers of many species, we cannot afford to destroy this valuable habitat.
Similarly, the River Nar is of significant global importance as a chalk stream supporting a diversity of wildlife. It is a designated SSSI and I fail to see how any restoration could possibly remedy the detrimental impact caused.
Landscape and Amenities: This area is used frequently by children from the two local schools in their studies of wildlife, rivers and history. Should this proposal go ahead, the south-western end of Marham village would become completely cut off from the river Nar, making it impossible for children to fulfil these studies. Currently, there is a huge initiative to encourage both children and adults to learn about their environment and to understand the benefits to their mental health, well-being, etc., by being able to enjoy fresh air and pleasant scenery.
The proposed area also includes many ancient footpaths which are used extensively by both residents and people from further afield. These would, of course, be permanently destroyed.
With no proposed route, as yet, for the option of piping the sand to Leziate, one wonders how many other people's lives will be affected by this proposal.
Benefits to the villages:
I cannot see any.
Instead, I see a bleak future of: reduction in house values making it difficult for residents to move, a loss of open space to enjoy, continual pollution by noise, light and dust and a depressing legacy for our children and grandchildren.
In conclusion, I am strongly of the opinion that these proposals have given no consideration to the resulting effects on the lives of the current residents and the lives of the population in the future.

Object

Representation ID: 92200

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Miss L Tanner

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

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

The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;

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

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

The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm

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

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


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


4. Access to site
a. The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing a pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping. However the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Dec 2017) page 11 states;
"The area of search is approximately 15 kilometres from the Leziate processing plant and it is considered likely that any extraction site would transfer mineral to the processing plant by road."
There is some confusion and misinformation over this issue.

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

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 92203

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Steve Brewer

Please accept this letter as a formal objection to the progress of the Sibelco sand applications with reference to AOS E - Shouldham & Marham silica sand quarry.

To echo the many valid points already raised in the various letters I have read I would also like to highlight that by allowing this to pass through planning you run a very high risk of damaging Shouldham village and it's representation as a desirable West Norfolk location to live. Of which if you are interested in the growth of this part of Norfolk with in train connections to London, something you must keep in mind!

With the Ofsted outstanding primary school and community ran/owned pub and the increasingly used Warren, Shouldham remains one of a few village locations in West Norfolk that will attract people here to live.

Should you allow the quarry to go ahead oppose to looking at the bigger picture you will personally be damaging the future of this village and the surrounding area.

There are other other locations which I believe to be of less damage to the environment and economics of this part of Norfolk and the International business that Sibelco is can easily source the same sand elsewhere, just not making such profit along the way....

Please consider your final decision carefully.

Object

Representation ID: 92205

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Christine Wilson-Low

RE: Proposed Sites SIL 02 & AOS E. I.e Shouldham Warren, as a preferred area for Silica Sand Extraction

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed sites shown above, as preferred areas' for silica sand extraction, as well as the disproportionate time limits given to object.
A development of this nature will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

Shouldham is a thriving village with excellent, involved community, which has spread to Marham, an already established community which is growing all the time.

The proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, concerns that are esculated considering the massive size of this site, and time scales involved in the development.

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

My objection is based on the following grounds:

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

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

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

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

Landscape
* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful views across the fen landscape which will be devastated, screening will therefore be ineffective
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact residents and wildlife health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land at a time when we will need our own food supplys.
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated 100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled Monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future

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

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come.

No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.

This proposal will also affect residents in Pentney, & Narborough, directly ( have they been consulted?) as well as affecting the surrounding areas indirectly, including such groups as Ryston runners, Nordic Walkers, Dog walkers who regularly use the area.

I note that some years ago a report was prepared by the "inspectorate" regarding this issue for the Secretary of State; I therefore ask why it has only recently been brought to our attention?

Object

Representation ID: 92207

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Sandra Wilson-Low

RE: Proposed Sites SIL 02 & AOS E. I.e Shouldham Warren, as a preferred area for Silica Sand Extraction

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed sites shown above, as preferred areas' for silica sand extraction, as well as the disproportionate time limits given to object.

A development of this nature will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on a rural community, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF airbase of strategic national importance.

Shouldham is a thriving village with excellent, involved community, which has spread to Marham, an already established community which is growing all the time.

The proposal put forward by Sibelco is an optimistic 'best case scenario' which downplays the negative impact on residents' wellbeing, our community, and the environment, concerns that are esculated considering the massive size of this site, and time scales involved in the development.

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

My objection is based on the following grounds:

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

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

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

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

Landscape
* Marham village enjoys an elevated position relative to the proposed site, with beautiful views across the fen landscape which will be devastated, screening will therefore be ineffective
* Prevailing North and North West winds will aggravate noise and dust pollution concerns and impact residents and wildlife health
* Irreplaceable loss of agricultural land at a time when we will need our own food supplys.
* Destruction of ancient footpaths and relocation of rights of way (further than the stipulated
100m permitted) contained both within and adjacent to the proposed site, which are extensively used by local residents, schools and tourists
* Detrimental impact on the open nature of the landscape and to the setting of the scheduled Monument Pentney Priory Gatehouse and other heritage assets
* No assurances have been received regarding the possibility of the site being used for Landfill in the future

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

In conclusion, nothing in this proposal addresses residents' concerns about the devastating impact the development will have on our community, quality of life, health and wellbeing for decades to come.

No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned as industrial wasteland with zero potential for either leisure or ecological benefit.

This proposal will also affect residents in Pentney, & Narborough, directly ( have they been consulted?) as well as affecting the surrounding areas indirectly, including such groups as Ryston runners, Nordic Walkers, Dog walkers who regularly use the area.

I note that some years ago a report was prepared by the "inspectorate" regarding this issue for the Secretary of State; I therefore ask why it has only recently been brought to our attention?

Object

Representation ID: 92210

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Miss E Greene

RE; AOS E, Consultation for the planned silica sand extraction by SIBELCO near Marham and Shouldham, Kings Lynn, NORFOLK.

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

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

The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;

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

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

The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm

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

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


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


4. Access to site
a. The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing a pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping. However the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Dec 2017) page 11 states;
"The area of search is approximately 15 kilometres from the Leziate processing plant and it is considered likely that any extraction site would transfer mineral to the processing plant by road."
There is some confusion and misinformation over this issue.

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

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 92211

Received: 15/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Barham

I appreciate the fact that mineral extraction is to be of considerable importance especially when Sibelco is involved but the main worry for me is Shouldham Warren .Shouldham Warren it will be seen was planted on silica sand a short distance from the proposed site.We must respect the forestry commission involvement here as to have spent a considerable amount of money to provide picnic areas horse riding areas mountain bike areas and general dog walks these are enjoyed by a large amount of people Marham Shouldham Downham market and beyond. I attended a meeting with Sibelco and many local residents to decide what should be done with worked out pits at Bawsey in the wake of drowning in very deep water filled pits.I have since been told from reliable sources that silica is extremely problematic and must therefore be considered as highly dangerous hence the name virgin dust unable to accept weight and is extremely liable to move very easily under these conditions.The plant equipment needed to prepare the site would be large therefore unable to use the road at Marham,there seems to be no way in Shouldham would be out of the question as I am sure you must already know,this being one problem? The extraction pits would not be seen to blend in with an extremely attractive and much envied part of the immediate environment.The residents of the two villages most affected have I am sure wondered how it could be allowed to ruin a superior view.Very very strict measures would have to be placed on the shoulders of Sibelco if you where to consider this application possible. The country as a hole is losing to much or its superior environment to industry who or won't respect the natural beauty of the surrounding environment. We should therefore remember the drownings at Sibelco silica extraction pits at Bawsy and imposed considerable restrictions on Sibelco. Health and Safety being just one of many, Sibelco being perhaps multinational would therefore think they are above any restrictions and the law. I remain yours one completely unhappy Marham resident. Thanks for tacking time to read my letter of so many I feel sure important points to be tacken in to consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 92223

Received: 16/08/2018

Respondent: Mr John Carman

I would like to lodge my objection to AOS-E - the area of search for silica sand to the northeast of Shouldham on the following grounds...

- Destruction of local ecology
- Destruction of valuable agricultural land
- Desctruction of many acres of forrest currently used by local mountain biking clubs, hourse riders and hundreds of walkers
- Increaded noise during periods of excavation, many residents live within a few hundred meters
- Destruction of views from houses to the north of Shouldham
- Reduction in local housing value
- Reduction in tourism and visitors - the warren currently attracts people from far and wide to the local area and this helps support the now thriving and award winning local pub.
- Exposure to Silica dust and the associated health issues, this is within 2 km of the local school
- Unsuitable road infrastructure for the removal of any waste material
- Close proximity to the local RAF base, increased water will increase the bird population and will be a risk for jets

In Summary this will have a devistating impact on the local community, school and pub and will destroy a thriving local receational and beauty spot.

Object

Representation ID: 92224

Received: 16/08/2018

Respondent: Mr B Greene

RE; AOS E, Consultation for the planned silica sand extraction by SIBELCO near Marham and Shouldham, Kings Lynn, NORFOLK.

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

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

The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;

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

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

The government website states the following;
www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/cancer-and-construction/silica-dust.htm

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

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


3. Noise, dust and light pollution
a. The area under consideration is extremely flat with no natural noise, light or dust barriers. Therefore screening will be ineffective and the entire site will be visible to the majority of the residents of Marham. There is no Bunding large enough to provide a barrier against the noise and light pollution this work will cause. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable.
 
4. Access to site
a. The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing a pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping. However the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Dec 2017) page 11 states;
"The area of search is approximately 15 kilometres from the Leziate processing plant and it is considered likely that any extraction site would transfer mineral to the processing plant by road."
There is some confusion and misinformation over this issue.

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

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 92238

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Bridget Archibald

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 92240

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Archibald

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 92243

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Hallett

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

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

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

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

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

Health/Safety & Environment

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

Economic

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

Local Infrastructure

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

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

Social

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 92245

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Sarah Swanson

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

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

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

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

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

Health / Safety & Environment

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

Economic.

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 92248

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Ms Sarah French

I would like to register my objection to proposed sites SIL 02 and AOS-E as preferred areas for silica sand extraction.

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

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

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

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

Health/Safety and Environment

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

Economic

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

Local Infrastructure

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

Ecology

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

Landscape

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

Archaeology

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

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