AOS E - land to the north of Shouldham

Object

Representation ID: 98085

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Shayne Canham

I would like to voice my very string objection to this quarry for the reasons stated below:

This beautiful area of woodland is used by me, my family and my pets. This particular place of beauty is is local to me and, if removed, I would have to travel miles to my neatest woodland. This would, along with the damage to our carbon footprint by removing trees, add additional damage by driving a vehicle.

There are so many animals and birds that use this area which would have no where to go. This at a time when animal numbers are depleting.

I am extremely concerned on the health impact of mining a fine sand in an area of flat land which cannot be stopped as it travels. I DO NOT want to breathe in silica sand.

As a resident of Marham, I already have the sound of planes and do not feel it proportionate to have a quarry too.

The roads are narrow..full of holes..and definately not equipped for a barrage of transporting trucks.

Object

Representation ID: 98086

Received: 28/10/2019

Respondent: Sonya Horton

I object to silica sand mining taking place in the area of Area Of Search (AOS) E and its surroundings as proposed in the Norfolk County Council Mineral & Waste Local Plan, Preferred Options July 2019. It is used for outdoor exercise by 1000s of people; young and old. The loss of long-established woodlands would be devastating for mental health and physical well-being. It would be a disaster for the biodiversity of flora and fauna supported by that ecosystem. The destruction of woodland, never to be restored, is unacceptable at a time when Govt's policy (Clean Growth Strategy) is to increase the number of trees in the UK - "Establish a new network of forests in England... plant 11 million trees". We are facing a Climate Crisis. Shouldham Warren is one of our precious planet's lungs, capturing 11,000 tonnes of C02 per year. The Warren provides clean air, home to precious biodiversity, valuable educational space for children and a recreational area well used by so many people. The lack of an improved glass recycling plan to increase the amount of glass cullet available to UK glass manufacturers makes further quarrying for silica sand at the current rate morally wrong. Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate the woodlands and agricultural farmland in AOS E and remove AOS E from the Mineral & Waste Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 98088

Received: 28/10/2019

Respondent: Gareth Shelton

I object to silica sand mining taking place in the area of Area Of Search (AOS) E and its surroundings as proposed in the Norfolk County Council Mineral & Waste Local Plan, Preferred Options July 2019. It is used for outdoor exercise by 1000s of people; young and old. The loss of long-established woodlands would be devastating for mental health and physical well-being. It would be a disaster for the biodiversity of flora and fauna supported by that ecosystem. The destruction of woodland, never to be restored, is unacceptable at a time when Govt's policy (Clean Growth Strategy) is to increase the number of trees in the UK - "Establish a new network of forests in England... plant 11 million trees". We are facing a Climate Crisis. Shouldham Warren is one of our precious planet's lungs, capturing 11,000 tonnes of C02 per year. The Warren provides clean air, home to precious biodiversity, valuable educational space for children and a recreational area well used by so many people. The lack of an improved glass recycling plan to increase the amount of glass cullet available to UK glass manufacturers makes further quarrying for silica sand at the current rate morally wrong. Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate the woodlands and agricultural farmland in AOS E and remove AOS E from the Mineral & Waste Local Plan. I also object to quarrying in SIL 02. It is false of Norfolk County Council to say SIL02 has not been allocated whilst retaining 1/3 of the area in Area Of Search, AOS E. It has known mineral deposits, there is a willing landowner, that defines a preferred area. MOD (DIO) objected to the WHOLE of SIL02, I demand that NCC removes this overlap area from their M&WLP.

Object

Representation ID: 98090

Received: 28/10/2019

Respondent: Frederik Hohnsbein

I strongly object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
Shouldham Warren is our community's public open space and it is used by a very large number of people from the surrounding areas to walk, cycle, and 'forest bathe'. It is used by cycling groups and the Ryston Runners have their races here every winter which are attended by a large number of children and adults from far and wide. I am concerned about the negative impact on villagers' and visitors' physical and mental health if they are denied access to these woods.
I object to the plan as it would ruin the landscape and due to its effect on habitats for birds, animals and insects.
I don't think that the roads are fit for carrying great loads of traffic. Increased traffic through the village will make it inhospitable and increase noise and dust pollution.
Please record this as my objection.

Object

Representation ID: 98092

Received: 28/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Elizabeth Tyler

By now you will have had countless objections to the AOSE and SILO2 Norfolk Minerals and Waste Plan.

As a long term resident of Shouldham I wholeheartedly concur with the range of objections raised, some of which I summarise below as of particular relevance to me.

1. The intended location still falls within the 13km limit of RAF Marham and the risk of bird strikes remains.

2. Shouldham Warren is heavily used as an open space community resource ranging from cyclists, horse riders, runners, ramblers, dog walkers and families. It would be a devastating loss to the village and wider community.

3. The long term destruction of the landscape and the negative impact on the habitats of the flourishing wildlife.

Of course there are other objections which you will already be familiar with but I wish to leave you to think about my last point.

Why continue to extract the mineral silica when we already have enough glass in circulation? If the NCC is serious about the long term sustainable use of its resources, surely you must do more to improve recycling targets?

It seems to me that it is far easier and a lot less effort for the NCC to grant an application for mineral extraction than to focus on your responsibility to spearhead a reduction in "waste" (the other half of your Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan).

Please do what is right not what is easiest and remove this location from the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 98094

Received: 25/10/2019

Respondent: Emma Greene

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed quarry plans for area AOS E as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.
I also wish to lodge my objection to the plans to use a large area of SIL02 located within AOS E. We were told SIL02 was no longer being considered but a third of it still is, as part of AOS E.
As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most, am totally against these plans.
The reasons for my objection to the above are as follows;
1. Environmental issues
* The land in question is high quality agricultural land and a forest. The Carbon footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of agricultural land and forested area.
* Any disturbance will have dramatic consequences to the biodiversity of the flora and fauna found within this and the surrounding area; including mammals, reptiles, birds and mating birds of prey.
* Due to the depth of the dig, quality and volume of material to be removed it will be impossible to return the land to its existing productivity levels to return back to agricultural status.
* Any screening or boarding 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? How will boarding reduce light and sound pollution from spreading within such an open area based near an active RAF base?
* Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
* Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species and breeding pairs.


2. Health and safety

The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues. The wind typically blows from this site directly towards Marham. Under these circumstances the smaller particles of sand and dust will travel long distances and easily reach properties in Marham and Shouldham. This area of land is extremely flat with no natural barriers to slow or prevent the movement of dust and fine particles from the site to the adjacent properties. The effects of this on the health of the elderly, asthma sufferers and those with breathing issues will be significant. The effects of Inhalation of minimal silica particles has been documented within private studies, the construction industry and the NHS.
3. Noise, dust and light pollution
* 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 that this will create. The noise, dust and light pollution from the estimated 11 hour day land stripping and 24 hour a day 7 days a week dredging is totally unacceptable.
4. Access to site
The local single track country road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing a pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping.
5. The Water Table / Flood plain
* The majority of the land under review is currently part of a HIGH RISK flood plain. The plan by Sibelco is to flood the fenland 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.
* Anglian water have a sewage pumping station in close proximity to the site. They also have a number of bore holes across Marham Fen for the extraction of clean water, how will these be affected by the plan.
6. Increased risk of Bird Strikes on aircraft
* Concerns have already been expressed and documented by the Council on a restoration plan after the 20 year period involving the creation of a lake and wetlands. In accordance with government guidelines there should be a 13km radius from the centre point of RAF Marham designated as a safeguarding area against bird strike, industrial lighting etc. This area is prone to flooding and will flood once material is extracted. The flooding of the area either during the dredging process or on completion of the sand removal is of concern as this will increase the number of birds and wild fowl resulting in potential bird strikes on expensive aircraft in close proximity to RAF Marham.
7. Value to the community.
* 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.
* 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.
* No proposed economic benefit for the villages of Marham or Shouldham
8. Property Value
* This will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least 28 years. Who wants to live near and look at a Silica sand extraction plant that will be in opened from 2026 and in operation for at least 20 years, probably much longer?
b. Potential increase on home insurance due to increased flood risk
Please accept the above points as part of our formal objection to the planned sand extraction Site AOS E and the area SIL 02 still contained within it.

Object

Representation ID: 98096

Received: 23/09/2019

Respondent: Mr A Austin

1. It seems that there is no mechanism for removing the site overlap which is technically a very dubious position to plan both an extraction location and a search location of the same area, how can it be both? I refer to AOS-E and SIL_02, of course which you have already been notified.
2. The revised assessment of the AOS_E site does studiously refused to consider essential elements of any proper evaluation (regardless of whether they are in your assessment procedure regulations or not) on the potential impact to life. I refer to the potential loss of a carbon capture sink (trees) during a period of exception need to combat climate change gases increasing beyond acceptable limits and also to the reduction of recreational space for much of West Norfolk. Shouldham Warren is much used by people from a much wider area postulated as only nearby villages, to the level at which many countryside recreational sites would just envy. Closing areas to people, demolishing trees and the consequential local disruption is along the level of closing the Norfolk Broads to boats, or turning Hyde Park, London into an open cast mine.
3. The justification for such a large area of disruption cannot really be determined by somewhat dubious projections of the need for silica sands, especially if recycling waste was treated much more seriously than is current practice in Norfolk and the rest of the country.
4. If you only work on financial figures the potential income from quarrying should be balanced against the compensation that would be necessary to those affected, if it were not for the derisory levels offered historically, this figure should be somewhat over a billion pounds at present day prices which would arguably make the scheme uneconomic.

Object

Representation ID: 98098

Received: 22/10/2019

Respondent: Lori Gallagher

I object to AOSE and especially the overlap of SIL02 in NM&WLP for the following reason

The Scrutiny Committee sat on 17 Sept 19 the following was asked;
8.6.2 The Committee questioned Cllr Grant about strategic and financial matters related to his portfolio: A Member queried Norfolk's recycling rate of 40%, which was low compared to some other Counties, and what could be done to improve it. Cllr Grant replied that work had been done to remove green bins in areas with high contamination rates and further work would be carried out to reduce contamination of recycling waste. Discussions were ongoing with the Norfolk Waste Partnership.
If the recycling rate was increased to 60%, this could reduce costs to the Council by millions of Pounds!

Introduce a glass recycling plant within Norfolk. This would have two effects; increased recycling rates and create local jobs. This would not only save the environment by reducing to a minimum the need for silica sand extraction but also create wealth for the local economy.

Object

Representation ID: 98100

Received: 29/10/2019

Respondent: Narelle Gannon

Objection to AOS E- Land between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren
I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the Overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the minerals and waste plan. I cannot believe that the Norfolk County council thought that by removing just a part of the original SIL 02 from being included in the plan of extracting silica sand, the community wouldn't notice. This is really misleading to residents as it was believed that as how close of a proximity the plan is to RAF Marham that it would be completely removed as it is unsafe due to it will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or an aircraft crash. However, a third of it is still included in AOS E when it still is well within the statutory 13kms limit. This means that the previous objection by the MOD/DIO should be upheld.
This will also cause a negative impact on the surrounding villages and visitors health. According to Public health profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), Silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. If these proposals go ahead it will be failing to provide the locals with health and wellbeing. Shouldham Warren is a place that provides everyone who uses it, somewhere to exercise, socialise or to view the beautiful surroundings. These natural open spaces are important to residents and visitors mental and physical wellbeing as it provides somewhere for people to go to relax and also acts as an outdoor Gym.
I strongly object to the destruction of such a well loved, greatly used ancient woodland. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. The Guardian reported on 3rd October 2019, "Populations of the UKs most important wildlife have plummeted by an average of 60% since 1970, according to the most comprehensive analysis to date". The surrounding countryside is an invaluable asset and provides habitats for birds, animals and insects. How could this even be considered as a proposed site? We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change! Especially since the amazon rainforest, which absorbs a lot of carbon dioxide, is increasingly struggling with fires and deforestation, has "decreased by one billion hectares in 40 years" and in 100 years it could be gone! This shows that we need to do everything in our power to help the environment as if we continue to ruin it there maybe no way back! Trees absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen sounds like a magic solution, but that's just nature, we have no right to destroy it. It was recently reported that NCC needs to plant 64,000 trees in the next 10 years! Lets start by preserving the woodland we already have otherwise that figure will increase excessively!
Shouldham Warren provides people who own horses a safe place to go trekking as they don't have to worry about drivers, who may drive to closely when passing them, causing accidents. Its important for them to have places to trek other than roads as "one incident a day" occurs in the uk due to drivers being careless.
Sibelco are not an authority but seem to believe they are able to instruct NCC how much Silica must be extracted. The reality should be efficient recycling of the existing glass in circulation, which is not being done. Only half is recycled, finding a place to put a hole to bury the other half is not acceptable! The preservation of mineral sources is essential and meeting the needs of the present without compromising future generations to meet their own needs. We cannot keep taking from the World, it does NOT owe us ANYTHING! It was here long before we were! We should be the guardians protecting it NOT destroying it !!
The impact of Brexit will clearly mean a greater need for home grown food. Losing large areas of agricultural land will have a negative affect on the increased demand and local farming jobs will be threatened. As these plans will not benefit the local community in any way and only present multiple risks, I see NO positives and many negatives. Another negative being the very worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water as the whole of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
These proposals will mean HGVs using an already heavily congested route that simply will NOT cope!
Any restoration of the site will take in excess of 30 years, resulting in an increased flow of HGVs and a devastated landscape and countryside. Sibelco have a poor track record for restoration in the area and have failed to ensure the safety of sites after extraction, its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning.
It is the responsibility of County Councils to ensure the publics needs are being met and not disregarded in favour of harmful and irresponsible businesses making money which will not benefit the community or country.
Please record this as my objection.

Object

Representation ID: 98101

Received: 22/10/2019

Respondent: Andreas Hohnsbein

I strongly object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
Shouldham Warren is our community's public open space and it is used by a very large number of people from the surrounding areas to walk, cycle, and 'forest bathe'. It is used by cycling groups and the Ryston Runners have their races here every winter which are attended by a large number of children and adults from far and wide. I am concerned about the negative impact on villagers' and visitors' physical and mental health if they are denied access to these woods.
I object to the plan as it would ruin the landscape and due to its effect on habitats for birds, animals and insects.
I don't think that the roads are fit for carrying great loads of traffic. Increased traffic through the village will make it inhospitable and increase noise and dust pollution.
Please record this as my objection.

Object

Representation ID: 98104

Received: 21/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Barham

Dear Madam I would quite hate the position you must be in at present as far as Marham Shouldham and mineral extraction is concerned. The new extraction site outlined is I understand 1/3 of the original but as you know and I know 1/3 becomes 1/2 and so on until the original application is reached. We are about to lose one more and so- so much admired to the point of jealousy a beautiful site shared by so many many people near and far away such as Downham Mkt and Swafham,a site laid out for picnics dog walking horse riding or just walking. I have been involved either with the RAF or MOD for approximately 30 yrs and I know the extreme danger this proposal would put on a front line back up base such as RAF Marham its operational strength would therefore be questionable. One possible strike could spell catastrophe for pilot or civilian wherever. As soon as extraction starts it opens up the free meal syndrome for all wild life great or small a very serious position for the RAF to be in. Estate Agents and the inhabitants in the adjoining areas know that if this application is passed house prices take a very bad downfall as seen in Ashwicken and East Winch. Sibelco an above the law company convened a residence meeting to discuss the old and worked out pits at the Bawsey site outside of Kings Lynn these sites had already caused death, many suggestions were put on the table but the one that was thought could benefit Sibelco reputation was a small tea shop and already there car park completely voluntarily run by residents nearby, later this was not to be and the whole site was sold on to a large solid and liquid refuse company. Finally my email must be seen as an honest and just refusal of this Application.

Object

Representation ID: 98106

Received: 20/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Steve Brewer

Please accept this as my formal objection to ACS E - Land between Shouldham and Marham including Shouldham Warren including the Sincks and the overlap of SIL 02) to be removed from the Minerals and Waste plan, (indefinitely)

Come for a walk with me and my family in Shouldham Warren ....

I'd like to think you cared for all the trees that you will be cutting down and removing from the face of the earth.

It did come as a surprise to me, as it did to the land owner of The Warren; that her land had been offered up by you to be part of your plan when she had no idea that you had done so. Shocking that you are even able to do that without asking her permission first.
Maybe you didn't care?

I'd like to think you cared for all the animals that live there and call it home. The nesting nightjars, the thousands of migrating Rooks and the snakes and slow-worms, that you cared about them at least? I'm not even going to mention the rare moths!
[Picture of a rare 'Broad-Boardered' Hawk Moth found in the Warren resting on my son's finger]
I'd like to think you cared for all the people that enjoy the Warren, be it to walk their dog, ride on their horses or simply to enjoy a walk in the woodlands/woods when we
increasingly are seeing doctors prescribe such things to improve people's physical and mental health. There is now an increasing amount of research that supports this!

I imagine you'd care a little for the amazing work being done by within Norfolk ALC, people like John W Pennell, Chairman of Norfolk ALC Task & Finish Group, in particular for helping the county with its wellbeing and green issues.
[Photo caption - A Walk in the Warren can do you wonders!]
I'd like to think you cared for all those that live close to the Warren and the additional pressures your decision will put on the road infrastructure. Causing more carbon dioxide and pollution to go into the air in an already poor air quality part of the UK. Maybe you should care about that.
You sound like you are happy to put pilots' lives at risk even after the MOD / DIO stated the risk is simply too high for having a quarry so close to RAF Marham. I struggle to
believe that you don't care about their lives!

To be honest I am also a little confused why a 1/3 of SIL02 the (preferred area) proposed by Sibelco has been left in your current Waste and Minerals plan when the MOD DIO
objected to it. Maybe you don't care after all. ..

You could care to change a few things. To challenge others if we should be removing all this sand from the earth to make glass when there is already enough in existence.

I'd like to think you cared for those that use the Warren for sport. Be it to run or cycle in. If only you cared for their lifestyle choices, and the friendships and communities that are formed within the Warren.
[Photo caption - the well attended under 11's Ryston Runners cross-country race]
Maybe your focus could be on local employment? Knowing the quarry won't bring any local employment at all, maybe you should focus your care to those without or looking for work
in the area.

And you could care for my well-being and that of my family. Your decision will place a quarry 250 meters from our front door without knowing the true impact on our lives. What
research have you undertaken to be able to tell me that we will be okay in years to come?
Where are my human rights?

Maybe you should care for the children and the fact that you are destroying the landscape for future generations, even if you don't care about the here and now. People like myself, [redacted text - personal data] who chose to move to the Warren with my family in order to give us all the best quality of life possible. Do you care?

Maybe you should care for what decision that Norfolk County Council come to make if Shouldham Warren and the surrounding countryside should be turned into a quarry for the next 25 years with no restoration plan at the end. Another wasteland?

The situation you have put us in, the worry and the long term stress you have put us under has already caused us enough harm.
[Photo caption - that's my daughter]
Can you guarantee my family's health and well-being in the long term won't be harmed living next to a quarry for the next 25 years? Can you ... ? Are you going to be slowly
harming us by letting this happen? Maybe you really should care about that...

I'd like you to point me to the research that supports your plans, because all the research I have done on the subject points in the opposite direction: that the destruction of
woodlands like the Warren is a terrible idea. It is a heartless and inconsiderate act towards people, wildlife and nature.

Here are just some research findings I have come across:

Forestry England are actively promoting 'forest bathing' and it won't be long before our doctors are prescribing a walk in nature as a treatment for many. Maybe you should care about these people's lives?

Trees changes lives. Greener communities have cleaner air and are healthier and happier places for wildlife and people.

Maybe you should read the latest research recently published by Natural England. Or pay attention to the simple fact that you will be adding to the deaths of yet more wildlife by destroying their natural habitat. If you care, see Extinction Britain's recently launched campaign for example.

A child who experiences a woodland feels connected to nature in a way that could never be taught in a classroom and the trees around us are working away giving oxygen, shelter and shade.

Countless people around the globe are campaigning to turn things around the best we can by planting more trees to soak up our carbon dioxide, yet you are saying it's okay to
remove thousands of them and destroy the landscape, releasing tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere.
[Photo caption - that's my son & daughter 5 metres behind our cottage within the Warren]
Please try to inspire the next generation by helping thousands of youngsters and community groups look after what we currently have and maybe even plant more trees ...
This is your opportunity to be part of something amazing, not devastating!
P.S A little example of what Shouldham Warren will look like if you make the decision to hand it over and destroy it -
Is Norfolk County Council creating yet another wasteland to be used by fly-tippers?

Object

Representation ID: 98107

Received: 21/10/2019

Respondent: Marcelle Tilley

I am writing in the strongest terms to object to the proposal to quarry at Marham and Shouldham Warren, a proposal contrary to advice from Government, DEFRA and Norfolk County Council's declared aim to provide more green and open spaces and to plant more trees.
Surely at a time when there are huge concerns about recyling about what we are already producing, resulting in more and more landfill and pollution of rivers and oceans, together with the need for more self-sufficiency in food production to reduce foreign imports, the destruction of valuable agricultural land in entirely wrong. Add to this the loss of employment for agricultural workers and processors such as British Sugar, the future for the area would indeed be bleak.
We are told the land willl eventually be restored. This has not been the case with other sites and the damage will be irreversible. Particular reference here to the pollution of water courses. Once lost, species willl not recover. We have seen evidence of permanent damage in other countries where indiscriminate destruction of natural habitat is adding to the problem of climate change and global warming. Leading developed countries should not follow their example. It is up to us to start putting people before profit, especially as in this case the profit will be for another already rich country at the expense of the well-being of local people and visitors, for whom this area is so important.
Friends and I have been previous regular visitors to this area and other parts of unspoiled Norfolk, bringing income and employment. We are unlikely to be drawn to it if this scheme goes ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 98108

Received: 19/10/2019

Respondent: Mr A Brown

I wish to state my strong objections to your idiotic ideas of allowing our glorious woods to be used for mineral extractions. I understand that the company involved is Belgium and will not contribute in any way to the benefit of this area of Norfolk but rather lead to a loss of beautiful woodlands, aggravating many health problems for local residents.
When people are marching to protect our environment for future generations and your council is aiming to plant thousands of trees to protect Norfolk from CO2 gases, where is the logic in destroying the trees in this much loved woodland used by hundreds every week. It is a well known fact established by Cambridge researchers, including Ken Thompson, author of Darwins Most Wonderful Plants, that living near trees is known to benefit those with mental stress and other illnesses of the brain.
Local school children use the woods for nature studies and learn how to respect nature and wildlife (deer birds foxes rabbits etc) and you will be helping to deprive them of this essential part of growing up in this increasingly dangerous world.
The air in this area is very pure and we want it to stay that way for future generations as our contribution to global warming . You know very well the dangers from sand and cement inhalation which will ensue if this operation is allowed. It is a well known fact that sand and cement are the highest causes of CO2 gases. Don't inflict this nightmare scenario on our serene woodlands.

Object

Representation ID: 98111

Received: 20/10/2019

Respondent: Liz Gannon

Objection to AOS E - Land between Marham and Shouldham Warren Objection to AOS J - Land to the East of Tottenhill
May I start by saying, HOW VERY DARE YOU! When I first discovered these plans I thought it couldn't possibly be true!! And then to find that Norfolk County Council had deliberately misled the public that they are supposed to represent, to support, to act in the best interests of, by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality it is still included in AOS E. This overlap is evidently the ultimate aim of the Belgium company SIBELCO, otherwise why would it still be included?! No, we as a community are not that naive as to believe the smoke and mirrors that have been performed before us. The section of SIL 02 still within AOS E is still within the statutory 13kms limit of RAF Marham, therefore the previous objection by the MOD/DIO must be upheld.
According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. NCC will fail in its duty to provide health and wellbeing if these proposals are not stopped. Improving the Health and Wellbeing of this Country is of the highest importance and with 1 in 5 children leaving Primary school obese we need to encourage the use of natural open spaces, reducing the burden on Health Services. Attention has recently been drawn to poor mental health and high suicide rates which are a major cause for concern. Promoting open spaces of natural beauty for health and wellbeing is essential.
I strongly object to the destruction of such a well loved, greatly used ancient woodland. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. The Guardian reported on 3rd October 2019, "Populations of the UKs most important wildlife have plummeted by an average of 60% since 1970, according to the most comprehensive analysis to date". The surrounding countryside is an invaluable asset and provides habitats for birds, animals and insects. How could this even be considered as a proposed site? We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change! Trees absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen sounds like a magic solution, but that's just nature, we have no right to destroy it. It was recently reported that NCC needs to plant 64,000 trees in the next 10 years! Lets start by preserving the woodland we already have otherwise that figure will increase excessively!
Sibelco are not an authority but seem to believe they are able to instruct NCC how much Silica must be extracted. The reality should be efficient recycling of the existing glass in circulation, which is not being done. Only half is recycled, finding a place to put a hole to bury the other half is not acceptable! The preservation of mineral sources is essential and meeting the needs of the present without compromising future generations to meet their own needs. We cannot keep taking from the World, it does NOT owe us ANYTHING! It was here long before we were! We should be the guardians protecting it NOT destroying it!!

The impact of Brexit will clearly mean a greater need for home grown food. Losing large areas of agricultural land will have a negative affect on the increased demand and local farming jobs will be threatened. As these plans will not benefit the local community in any way and only present multiple risks, I see NO positives and many negatives. Another negative being the very worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water as the whole of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
These proposals will mean HGVs using an already heavily congested route that simply will NOT cope! Any restoration of the site will take in excess of 30 years, resulting in an increased flow of HGVs and a devastated landscape and countryside. Sibelco have a poor track record for restoration in the area and have failed to ensure the safety of sites after extraction, its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning.
It is the responsibility of County Councils to ensure the publics needs are being met and not disregarded in favour of harmful and irresponsible businesses making money which will not benefit the community or country.
Please record this as my objection.

Object

Representation ID: 98112

Received: 26/10/2019

Respondent: John Cowin

Silica Sand Extraction site AOS E Shouldham Warren
I am writing to OBJECT most strongly to NCC's proposal to designate area AOS E,Shouldham Warren/The Sincks and adjoining agricultural land for silica sand extraction.
This is first and foremost because I live in Shouldham close to the Warren and walk the family dog there every day, regularly take grandchildren, family and friends for walks there throughout the year. I also run the Downham Market U3A Walking group and regularly lead walks around the Warren.

The Warren and Sinks are managed by the Forestry Commission as both commercial forest and amenity land and represents the only significant piece of public access woodland in an area otherwise dominated by large farming estates. Consequently people visit the Warren from a wide area including Kings Lynn, Downham Market, Wisbech, Littleport and Ely and all smaller villages in between. It is very popular with dog walkers, mountain bikers, hikers, ramblers, horse riders, joggers etc and local running and cycling clubs also arrange periodic events drawing in people from much farther away. I labour these points to make NCC aware that the Warren is well used by a wide swathe of people in West Norfolk who appreciate its accessibility, beauty and tranquillity. The Warren is also a wildlife refuge with rare flora and fungi and creatures such as nightjars, slow worms, adders and bats. This is just the sort of place that NCC's Environmental policy should be protecting not threatening its destruction from sand extraction.
Sand extraction here would also have an adverse impact on the A134 and A10 which are already heavily trafficked with lorries to and from Felixstowe and the sugar beet factory at Wissington. Sand extraction is a highly mechanised operation and is unlikely to generate much local employment
So where is the benefit to West Norfolk in permitting new silica sand extraction at and around Shouldham Warren? We would lose a beautiful well managed woodland with free public access for all sorts of healthy activity, an
important wildlife site with some rare species, adjoining grade A agricultural land and suffer deteriorating road conditions, probably noise and dust as well.
Looking through the record of previous attempts to designate areas for silica sand extraction it seems that potentially more suitable sites closer to the Leziate railhead have been dismissed after objections from the MoD or an MP, these should be seriously reconsidered instead of Shouldham Warren.
Please do not repeat the mistake of the Waste Incinerator by assuming that NCC members and officers based in Norwich can ride roughshod over the views of residents of West Norfolk. How about instead improving glass recycling in the county and further afield to delay exhaustion of existing
workings and reduce the need for new sand extraction.

Object

Representation ID: 98115

Received: 18/10/2019

Respondent: Kay Peers

Objection to AOS E - Land between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren

I am writing to register my strong objection to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren, and the overlap with the area formerly known as SIL 02 in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Creating 'quarry settlements'? We are small rural communities with very limited infrastructure and facilities and these proposals would decimate the two villages, turning us into quarry settlements with no discernible benefit for the residents, whilst also destroying a facility - Shouldham Warren - that is used extensively by the wider community.

Risk of bird strike. I was relieved when common sense seemed to prevail and the concerns of the Ministry of Defence appeared to be listened to. As a member of the community I shared their concerns when they objected to the proposals, with the plan of wet working and restoration close to RAF Marham increasing the risk of bird strikes, and the threat that posed to the life of crew of the F35s and the surrounding local communities. I was then dismayed to learn that part of SIL 02 has still been included in the plan along with Shouldham Warren, which is still within the statutory 13 kms and poses just as much risk.

Lack of infrastructure. If the MOD concerns are taken seriously, as I expect them to be given the economic, moral and social cost of a bird strike bringing down an F35 onto the local area, and the extraction company were to switch their preference to dry extraction then I strongly object to a dry extraction plan. The local area is totally unsuited to heavy lorries driving to the site to construct it and then to transfer out the sand. Our roads are narrow country roads and not very well maintained. Depending on the preferred extraction route - via the A47 or A134 there would need to be extensive investment in the roads to sustain the weight of the lorries and to make the roads wide enough. If extracting sand via the A134 it would necessitate significant improvement of the junction where the Shouldham road joins the A134 as there are already regular accidents at that location.

Need to protect nature and forests. One of my biggest objections is the potential loss of Shouldham Warren when so many of our forests are being destroyed. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) the Earth loses 18.7 million acres of forests per year, which is equal to 27 soccer fields every minute. It is estimated that 15 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation, according to the WWF (4 Apr 2018). I strongly believe that we should be protecting our forests and trees given the need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and that this is a far higher priority given the impending climate change crisis than using this area to extract sand. I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the landscape, Shouldham Warren and our beautiful countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, insects and fungi. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.

Negative impact on health. I also strongly object to this plan given the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' and my health. I am advised that, according to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems, and silica particles will exacerbate conditions of reduced respiratory function such as COPD and Asthma. It is also vital to maintain our natural spaces to maintain mental and physical health. This fenland and forest is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary. I walk every day in the forest and it has been vital to my recovery from ill health and to maintain the best health I can. Being there daily myself I know that it is used regularly - hundreds of people use it for physical recreation, from dog walking, to mountain biking, running, horse riding, or like me for the love of walking within nature. I am also very concerned about the detrimental impact on health of the constant noise from the site. Sibelco at a public meeting admitted that the extraction process would be automated and would operate 24 hours a day so the noise would be continuous and destroy the peaceful surroundings we currently live in. We chose to live somewhere quiet and an industrial operation on our doorstep would be extremely detrimental to our well-being.

Loss of agricultural land. I am also very concerned, given the potential impact of Brexit, on the potential permanent loss of agricultural land. At a time when we will be needing to grow more home based produce this proposal will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar and will not be compensated for with the creation of local jobs given the extraction process is planned to be automated.

Damage to our water supply. I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our public water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers. We are a very low lying area and I am concerned that extraction would damage our water table and increase the risk of flooding.

Lack of restoration plans. A further strong objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction. Its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a good neighbour and has done nothing to engage with the community to alleviate the concerns of residents. They are not even pretending that there is a trade between the destruction and loss of local habitat with increased facilities to the communities. Nothing could compensate us for the loss of our beautiful landscape but they have not even tried to make this a fairer proposition for the communities who would suffer the monumental impact if this plan went ahead.

No community benefit. So lastly I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.

Given that county councils are responsible for the provision of public services for tax payers and community well-being, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, I strongly believe that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection.

Object

Representation ID: 98116

Received: 08/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Fiona Harrison-Jebb

I am writing to object to AOSE - land between Maraham and Shouldham including Shouldham Warren.
I object to AOSE and the overlap with formerly SIL02 in the Norfolk minerals and waste local plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL02, when in reality a third of it now/still include AOSE.
I object to the loss of diverse wildlife and the impact on the landscape, the warren supports colonies of Bats, has a survey been carried out as part of the planning application? The planning authority are obligated by law to carry out a survey in line with Natural Environment and Rural communities (NERC) act 20006 to make sure that they have all the information on the presence of protected species on the site before they make a decision on the planning application - (Wildlife and countryside act 1981) as amended & (Conservation of habitats and species regulations 2017) as amended. If the survey has not been carried out on proposed site, I am within my rights to request one, Which I do now. I am also within my rights under the freedom of information act to see the Bat survey. Bat conservation trust informed: 5th floor, Quadrant House, 250 Kennington Lane, London SEll SRD
There are large colonies of Adders in the warren - often seen basking in the summer months, the tree root system provides ideal winter hibernation, it is illegal to intentionally kill or injure Adders, in excavating this site they will be doing this. Adders are protected by law in Great Britain under the Wildlife and countryside act (1981) as amended.
The Amphibian and reptile conservation trust informed: ARC TRUST, 744 Christchurch Road, Boscombe, Boummouth, Dorset, BH7 6BZ

I object to the destruction of Shouldham Warren as it will have a negative impact on the health and mental well being, the Fenland, Shouldham warren is OUR community's public open space, it is a gym a sanctuary, 1 in 6 people in Norfolk have raised blood pressure, it has been proven that the tranquillity of woodland trees plays a large part in elevating this and mental health issues.
I object to the destruction of the warrens trees as they help to combat pollution and climate change, the governments policy in England shows a shortfall of 71 % in there target this year of re- planting ( Government report 2018-2019 states need to plant 11 million trees in the next 5 years) DO NOT DESTROY THE TREES WE ALREADY HAVE
I object to the increase of heavy articulated lorries, the A134 and A 10 (proposed route), the infrastructure is unable to cope with present traffic, a recently proposed housing application (approved) for 2000 houses between North Runcton and West Winch has the traffic coming out onto the A 10 - for many years the road infrastructure has been ignored, now totally inadequate and would be unable to accommodate proposed 600 lories a week from proposed site. I object to the damage that would be done to our public water, the whole area AOSE has productive to moderately productive aquifers, the environmental agency has a clear legal remit to protect these sites.
I object to the fact there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through, Sibelco are a Belgian company who employ minimal staff in Norfolk, Sibelco have no loyalty to our community. The beneficiaries of this development will be a few land owners, Norfolk County Council principally the private owners of Sibelco

I object because Sibelco show minimal interest in our country side and seem intent on its destruction
I object to the proposal of the extraction of silica on the grounds that Norfolk County Council do very little to re-cycle glass adequately, if they did there would be no need to extract a finite resource form proposed site.

Object

Representation ID: 98117

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Raymond Watts

I wish to object to the proposed Silica extraction sites, namely: (SIL 02) at Marham and (AOS E) adjacent to Shouldham Warren.
I write this as a 71 year old man who [redacted text - personal data] probably won't be around before the commencement of this devastating work. However, my conscience won't let me ignore this.
My wife and I moved to Shouldham in 2006. We have moved around from London, Essex, Kent and finally to Shouldham, where we have escaped the madness of increasing population and development of our green and pleasant land.
For this development to take place would be a travesty of common sense and a betrayal of the authorities obligation to it's population, that you are elected to serve.
The official campaigners have explained in eloquent terms, just had this will affect wildlife, the people in Marham and Shouldham, for years to come. This is a life changing event that will go on for years. The younger people in this area and their families, who are invested for the long haul by choice, will be forever affected.
This is without a doubt, a severe case of development vandalism. We know progress depends on change, but in this area the proposed change is overwhelming and irreversible.
I appeal that this be taken off of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Plan, for the good of the community that you serve.

Object

Representation ID: 98118

Received: 14/10/2019

Respondent: Martin Greene

RE: OBJECTION TO PROPOSED NEW QUARRY PLANS AOS E FOR SILICA SAND EXTRACTION

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed quarry plans for area AOS E as a preferred area for silica sand extraction.

I also wish to lodge my objection to the plans to use a large area of SIL02 located within AOS E. We were told SIL02 was no longer being considered but a third of it still is, as part of AOS E.

As a resident of Marham living in close proximity to this planned development I, like most, am totally against these plans.

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

1.Environmental issues
a.Stripping such a large plot of land for over 20 years will totally destroy the wildlife in this area. The Fen in Marham and the woods in Shouldham Warren will become isolated.
b.The amount of soil and clay to be removed to access the sand is significant and not just a simple surface scrape.
c.The land in question is high quality agricultural land. The Carbon footprint of the area will be greatly affected by the removal of such a large area of crops. Plants and agricultural farmland.
d.Due to the depth of the dig and volume of material to be removed it is doubtful if the site will ever be returned to agricultural land.
e.Any screening or Bunding of the site to reduce noise and light pollution will ruin this beautiful landscape and views currently seen across the fen. Where will all the removed soil be stored from the land stripping process?
f.Detrimental impacts on ecology and biodiversity on nearby Country Wildlife Sites
g.Destruction of habitat of endangered wildlife species including:
I.Voles, Newts, scarce Emerald Damselfly, Moths including the Grizzled Skipper, Dingy Skipper
II.Birds - conservation priority red list: Skylark, Lapwing, House Sparrow, Linnet, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Grey Wagtail, Tree Pipit, Nightjar, Woodlark, Grey Partridge


2.Health and safety
a.The dust created by such a development will cause health and safety issues. The wind typically blows from this site directly towards Marham. Under these circumstances the smaller particles of sand and dust will travel long distances and easily reach properties in Marham and Shouldham. This area of land is extremely flat with no natural barriers to slow or prevent the movement of dust and fine particles from the site to the adjacent properties. The effects of this on the health of the elderly, asthma sufferers and those with breathing issues will be significant.
b.Unacceptable increase in Noise, Dust and Light pollution as a direct result of the proposed extraction is in violation of local residents' rights as per European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 2 (right to life), given health concerns about silica dust and links to silicosis and respiratory diseases, Article 8 (respect for one's private and family life, home and correspondence), and Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of your property), considering the 'excessive burden' placed on thousands of individual residents.


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

4.Access to site
a.The local road network is poor and insufficient for such a project. I believe there is a possibility of installing a pipeline from this site to transport the sand for processing but no allowance has been made for the heavy duty equipment necessary for land stripping.

5.The Water Table / Flood plain
a.The majority of the land under review is currently part of a HIGH RISK flood plain. The plan by Sibelco is to flood this area in order to dredge the sand. This will only increase the chance of future flooding in the area in the absence of the flood plain.
b.Any Bunding and piles of surface soil and clay will only reduce the natural flow of water and increase the risk of flooding further.
c.Anglian water have a sewage pumping station in close proximity to the site. They also have a number of bore holes across Marham Fen for the extraction of clean water, how will these be affected by the plan.

6.Increased risk of Bird Strikes on aircraft
a.Concerns have already been expressed and documented by the Council on a restoration plan after the 20 year period involving the creation of a lake and wetlands. In accordance with government guidelines there should be a 13km radius from the centre point of RAF Marham designated as a safeguarding area against bird strike, industrial lighting etc. This area is prone to flooding and will flood once material is extracted. The flooding of the area either during the dredging process or on completion of the sand removal is of concern as this will increase the number of birds and wild fowl resulting in potential bird strikes on aircraft in close proximity to RAF Marham.



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

8.Property Value
a.This will significantly reduce the value of properties in and around Marham and Shouldham for at least 28 years. Who wants to live near and look at a Silica sand extraction plant that will be in opened from 2026 and in operation for at least 20 years, probably much longer?
b.Potential increase on home insurance due to increased flood risk

Please accept the above points as part of our formal objection to the planned sand extraction at site AOS E and the area SIL 02 still contained within it.

Object

Representation ID: 98121

Received: 24/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Brian Ferguson

AOSE .... Shouldham Warren/ Marham
I am totally opposed to this site being considered and shall briefly set out my reasons below, in no order of priority
1. The site in question is very close to the runways at RAF Marham, a base which is fundamentally important not only for the UK but for the defence of the EU and the NATO alliance in an extremely volatile world. The risk of bird strike which which was one of the principal reasons for the Marham site (SILO 2) being rejected apply equally here. For this reason alone, AOSE should NOT be on the table for consideration.
2. It seems ludicrous to be considering wiping out a very large area of woodland, so carefully nurtured and developed by the Forestry Commission at a time when we should be planting trees. This also applies to the vast amount of wildlife (animal, insect, bird) therein.
3. Shouldham Warren is a superb amenity for all local residents and visitors, including Marham, Shouldham, Fincham, Wormegay, Narborough and all the other local communities. It is a safe area, wheelchair accessible, used by bikers, strollers, dog walkers, very young and very old. It is unspoilt and wonderfully uncommercial. Local schools visit the Warren for educational purposes and long distance walkers along the Nar Valley Way often detour here, given its juxtaposition. I know this to be a fact .... I regularly talk with them.
4. Even a cursory glance at heritage websites reveals the fascinating range of historical monuments, finds and ruins within even a mile of the Warren. The Warren itself is a place of heritage interest, given the use of hundreds of acres here for breeding rabbits for mediaeval local sustenance. Again and again, in historical records, reference is made to the rabbit breeding here. For anyone to suggest that such use is simply a possibility is disingenuous. And in this respect, because the warren itself has been so carefully tended, who knows what further discoveries might be found here and in the vicinity?
5. It is suggested that in the event of quarrying occurring, the route to Leziate would be by exiting the Warren close by the Sincks, then onto the Al 34, A 10, through to Queen Elizabeth Hospital and thence to Leziate beside Mintlyn. It is the case that the A134 is already a very busy road, speed limit 60mph at the Sincks ..... and the A10 is frequently logjammed, being a very busy single carriageway. The bypass from Hardwick to QEH was meant to accelerate traffic but often that stretch of road itself is at a standstill. I speak from sad personal experience. Such a route might look logical on a map but in reality would be a massive retrograde step
6. It is my understanding that NCC will not take into consideration diminution of property values when assessing projects such as this. How convenient. The houses/ homes we are talking about here are the result of a lifetime of hard work, prudence and "doing the right thing". To brush that aside at a stroke is deeply offensive. And the very possibility that this might happen causes discomfort and distress to families and pensioners who do not deserve to be treated this way. It is an assault on their basic human rights.
Additional observations, which are tantamount to objections
a. I have attended four meetings at which Mike Hurley of Sibelco was present and I paid great attention to all he said. At no meeting did he give a single way in which myself or this community would benefit from local quarrying. I am listening but there's simply a deafening silence. In the same context I have received absolutely no indication from either the County or Borough council of how our lives will be improved. I am listening but not holding my breath.
b. As a nation we are at a crossroads in respect of Brexit. The short/ medium/ long term implications are far from clear. Sibelco is Belgian owned but is a global operator. Nobody can predict the outcome for UK manufacturing and sourcing of materials, irrespective of the Brexit outcome. So even the timing of this consultation seems unwise. There is also an inevitable chance that silica sand mined in the UK could be exported to EU or beyond thus helping off shore manufacturers benefit to our detriment. ... a truly disgusting thought. Have Sibelco given cast iron assurances already that they are not exporting silica sand from the UK?
c. Surely there are climate change implications, especially for the longer term. I touched upon this in point 2 above. The benefits of recycling for example. Simply to carry on, rushing towards the cliff edge of climate catastrophe, by continuing to do what we have always done, beggars belief ..... and all the warm, politically correct words would be meaningless. Is change possible? Are NCC afraid of change?
Uncomfortable fact.
One can well understand Sibelco's thinking in wanting to develop local quarrying. They have a hungry monster at Leziate which needs feeding .... and that site has served them very nicely, bolstering group profits. Assuming AOSE is taken off the table, as surely it must be, Sibelco then face the challenge of either sourcing sand from elsewhere or developing a new manufacturing plant elsewhere. This is precisely what Sirius Minerals are seeking to do in the north of England. Sirius are rising to that challenge. Sibelco, on the other hand are simply seeking the cosy option of business as usual, relying on local apathy. I for one object strongly and for the reasons set out above find it truly offensive that our County Council have put our communities in this situation.

Object

Representation ID: 98122

Received: 14/10/2019

Respondent: L Gallagher

I object to the one third of the still Preferred Area of SIL02 being included in AOS E. Your document issued in the Preferred Options consultation Sept 2019, Proposed Mineral Extraction Sites states; SIL02 was not allocated due to the MOD objection reported in the Infrastructure and Development Select Committee to the NCC Cabinet (see at Pg 272. 10.1 point 2, of Cabinet agenda for 05 Aug 2019). It has not reverted to an Area Of Search as it cannot be one; it has already been searched. It has a willing landowner and a known resource of silica sand, therefore, 2 of the 3 criteria for being a Preferred Area have been met. Your third criteria for a Preferred Area is; 'an area likely to gain planning permission'. Are you going to grant planning permission even though MOD have objected to the site? You have informed us within the consultation documents that the area of SIL02 had not been allocated. You, as our County Council are being insidious with the residents and taxpayers of West Norfolk. I further object to AOS E as a whole site. This objection is opposed to the sites SIL02 and AOSE going forward for inclusion in your plan.

Object

Representation ID: 98124

Received: 14/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs Inga-Lucy Barrett

I object to the inclusion of AOS E in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste plan and would like my comments submitted as part of the current consultation.
Firstly, whilst the former preferred area known as SIL 02 has apparently been removed from the plan, this is not the case. A significant part of SIL 02 has now been included in the area of search labelled AOS E. Placing an area with already proven silica deposits back into an area of search does not represent transparency in the consultation process.
I object to the fact that quarrying of any type in an area of such natural beauty, which provides habitat for so many different forms of wildlife, is even being considered. The Warren (AOS E) provides a home for many endangered species - both flora and fauna.
Facing a world-wide climate crisis, for Norfolk County Council to even consider the destruction of an established wooded area which supports many species of conservation concern, is staggering.
This area is widely used by local residents and visitors for recreational and health enhancing activities. Silica extraction in any form within AOS E would provide absolutely no benefit to the local communities. Conversely it would destroy landscape, amenity space and biodiversity and bring disruption of an industrial level to the area.
Norfolk County Council is charged with responsibly providing public services and promoting community well-being for its tax payers. It has no place in promoting harmful business that provide no local benefit and put private profit before community interest

Object

Representation ID: 98125

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Chris Child

I wish to register my strong objection to the development of a silica sand quarry in the area of Marham, Shouldham and the surrounding area.
I am concerned that the decision not to develop the area closest to RAF Marham may not be extended to the whole of the proposed development area. The birds that are likely to be attracted to such a development will not recognise the arbitrary boundaries that have been identified and are just as likely to cause a catastrophe on either side of the line.
I am also very concerned that there is a proposal to destroy a large area of woodland. This is at a time when the need for open spaces for the mental and physical health of the population is apparent and the dangers of climate change is in the very front of people's minds. The woodland of Shouldham Warren has a beneficial effect in both of these areas. Efforts should be made to preserve and enhance it, not destroy it.
I also have concerns regarding the contamination of the aquifer, the destruction of wildlife habitats, the lack of concrete proposals for the restoration of the landscape, the possible health effects, both mental and physical, on the local population and the desecration of the landscape. I feel it is the duty of the County Council to take account of these concerns and to act in a way that will protect the public interest.
Please record the above as my objection.

Object

Representation ID: 98127

Received: 14/10/2019

Respondent: Kirsty McKendrick

I object to the 2 silica sites in Marham and Shouldham.

Object

Representation ID: 98129

Received: 24/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Alan Bulmer

With reference to the above consultation I wish to comment as follows:
* Archaeolgy this area is potentially very rich in finds from Pre- historic to Roman and Medieval and any further undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the Silica Sand Extraction project. In close proximity are Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.
* With regards to the local infrastructure the obvious access to this site would have to be from either the road connecting Wormegay to East Winch which already denoted as "Unsuitable for heavy traffic" or the Spring Lane connecting Shouldham to Marham which is only a single vehicle roadway and in even worse condition than the former. It could, I assume, be accessed from the A 134 which has recently become a very busy highway for heavy transport from the A 1122 and from the A10. Use of any of these locations will be detrimental to local residents. There are a lot of children using the local school at Shouldham, and this school generates a lot of cars and some buses bringing children in from other local villages. There is also a large transport depot at the junction of the A134, Mill Lane and Runcton Lane. Any additional traffic generation to the mullti-businesses carrying freight particularly along the A134 is not recommended. This is without even considering the local residents that have to use these same roads use these roads to collect their weekly shopping from the local shopping centers of Downham Market and King's Lynn. I doubt whether this Community & Environental Service even bothered to find out that there are no shops in Shoudham, and other than the few minor shops in the RAF Marham Miitary establishment there are very limited number of shops at all in this rural area.
* The local Junior School in Shouldham that takes more pupils from the surrounding towns and villages than from Shouldham, It also attracts a lot of local traffic; and on a regular basis and there are a lot of children milling about the Shouldham village center, also lot of associated vehicles.
* This proposal does not address concerns about the devastating impact this development will have on our community, or the effect of on the well-being of the local residents for decades to come. Nor does it address the dust and noise this will generate. Have you considered the way this will affect the health of the local residents when exposed to prolonged silca dust over an extended period ?
* This development will undoubtably reflect in the reduction in the house values of the village of Shouldham. I have worked from my age of 16 (1962) until I retired in 1999 and over this period managed to save enough to buy my home in Shouldham: so why should some bureaucrat from Brussels be allowed to move in wherever he likes and affect my life. I will have been married for 60 years in 2020 so please tell these asset strippers to return to wherever they came from and allow me and my wife to live the remains of our lives in peace....
* It now appears the original letter refering to this development, dated 12 th August 2018, showed only the area desiganated SIL20, so it appears they now consider the residents of this area as stupid to notice that it now encompasses the remaining woodland of the warren.
* No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned which will leave this industrial site an industrial wasteland with no potential for either leisure or re-landscaping for any further use. It will leave the remains of this quarry, more than probably, a derelict hole in the ground.
* This site is unique to this area and these woodlands are irreplaceable and are used widely by the local residents for a multitude of leisure persuits not just from Marham and Shouldham but to resident such as Watlington, Finchham and similar local villages in this area.

* If we are short of glass in Norfolk could I suggest you tip all the discarded glass collected during our refuse collections onto the property of these developers, and save the wild life, fauna and trees of Shouldaham Warren for our future British generations
* I trust the Forestry Commission who are presently responsible for these woods are happy with all devastion you proposing?

Object

Representation ID: 98131

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Vikki Edwards

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren
I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
Please note that the inclusion of AoS-E specifically contradicts Norfolk County Council's Environmental Policy of April 2016 where is stated:-

"As part of its commitment to foster the environmental, social and economic well-being of the community, Norfolk County Council will work towards enabling people in Norfolk to benefit from an enhanced environment and quality of life. The County Council will ensure that these principles are integrated into the decisions of all its services and will:

1. Protect and enhance the county's wildlife and the quality and character of the Norfolk landscape and coast; encouraging the variety of habitats and species to deliver the aims of Biodiversity 2020.

2. Ensure nature contributes to the economic and social health of urban and rural areas in Norfolk for current and future generations."

The inclusion of AoS-E also specifically contradicts the National Planning Policy Framework, section 15, Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment, paragraphs 170, 174 and 175, which mandates Planning Refusal in the circumstances which apply to Shouldham Warren.


As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection
Please note that the inclusion of AoS-E specifically contradicts Norfolk County Council's Environmental Policy of April 2016 where is stated:-

"As part of its commitment to foster the environmental, social and economic well-being of the community, Norfolk County Council will work towards enabling people in Norfolk to benefit from an enhanced environment and quality of life. The County Council will ensure that these principles are integrated into the decisions of all its services and will:

1. Protect and enhance the county's wildlife and the quality and character of the Norfolk landscape and coast; encouraging the variety of habitats and species to deliver the aims of Biodiversity 2020.

2. Ensure nature contributes to the economic and social health of urban and rural areas in Norfolk for current and future generations."

The inclusion of AoS-E also specifically contradicts the National Planning Policy Framework, section 15, Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment, paragraphs 170, 174 and 175, which mandates Planning Refusal in the circumstances which apply to Shouldham Warren.


As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.

Object

Representation ID: 98135

Received: 26/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Shelagh King

I have submitted my objection recounting the facts surrounding the plans to Quarry for sand at Shouldham Warren. The words, the terminology, the quotas.
Thank you to all who have worked tirelessly collating all the facts to support our case against these plans. But I can best appraise you of the impact of the smells after the rain on a hot summers day, of a sharp frosty morning when the air is so clean and cold, the sounds of the forest on a spring morning, the feelings of calm you are left with after a visit to the Warren. That's without the particular benefits of exercise on our bodies or the impact of the trees to our planet.
The Warren is very dear to me and has been for nigh on 20 years. Shouldham Warren became my back yard when I moved to Wormegay shortly after my husband died. I was 43, building my life again and trying to hold it all together. I didn't know of Shouldham Warrens existence when I first moved but soon after and exploring the country lanes, getting lost, wet, muddy, it became my 'go to place' to lift my spirits, think things through in my head. Make plans, set goals, compose those difficult letters. And I know I'm not alone almost all visitors reap these rewards. The place to exercise, breath in deep and calm and exhale away the stresses for what life can throw at you. Better than any pills.
But with these plans afoot to destroy the Warren, to chop down the trees that makes this space so special, to quarry the very fine sand that supports the trees, the wildlife - birds deer fox snakes slow worms swans water voles badgers the list is endless. All those tracks for walkers runners cyclists. Dens and wigwams made by children from fallen branches. A safe environment of plain and simple pleasures, no X Boxes here. When daily we are bombarded with images and statistics of how through the activities and greed of man the planet and its resources are being plundered ......STOP!
2013 at the tender age of 57 I trained in the Warren to run the London Marathon raising money for the MS Society, it took me 7:41 to complete, I only just qualified for my medal, 6 years on [redacted text - personal data] and my visits (almost daily) with my dog Rosie are with the use of an electric buggy. I still get all the benefits of being among the trees and meeting like minded people. The thought of losing all this is what gets my heart racing now though.
The importance of Shouldham Warren is immeasurable to the communities Health and Wellbeing which amounts to so many different things to so many on numerous levels.
Oh and then there's the planet...
Actions under consideration by NCC seem to fly in face of all the advise from the government and environmentalist about the importance and urgency of planting more trees. Where is the gain, for the planet, for the communities. I see a huge financial gain for foreign companies - sorry does that make me sound racist? Some financial gain for individual land owners and my thoughts on that are best kept to myself. The Win-Win here has got nothing to do with the communities that surround this area or the hundreds, probably thousands of visitors to Shouldham Warren for near or far.....
HM Government "A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment" What do these words mean?
Why not just leave 'the Warren' as it is?

Object

Representation ID: 98136

Received: 03/10/2019

Respondent: Jane Collie

The proposed areas are well used public recreational areas which are enjoyed by huge numbers of walkers, cyclists, horse riders and runners. If planning was granted it would destroy footpaths and bridlepaths not to mention the devastation to woodland and wildlife aswell as the impact on local village life.

I cannot stress how important it is to keep this area untouched and therefore object to the planning application submitted by Sibelco.

I very much hope the 2 local MPs Ms Truss and Mr Bellingham are fighting against this too and would appreciate a response from them both indicating their thoughts on this.

Object

Representation ID: 98138

Received: 26/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Jasmine Long

I wish to object to the creation of Silica Sites in the Shouldham Warren and surrounding areas. As a young person, I would like to share my reasoning to why the plans should not be considered.

[redacted text - personal data]

There are little to no opportunities and events for young people in my area to attend [redacted text - personal data]. As well as this, the extremely poor transport links contribute to the feeling of isolation and loneliness that [redacted text - personal data] many people my age have experienced in rural locations !

Throughout the entire year I spent at home, the Shouldharn Warren and surrounding area was a safe place for self-care. I often biked or ran through the woodland and would often spend hours reading, meditating, relaxing and exercising there [redacted text - personal data]. I could not get enough of spending time in this beautiful location. [redacted text - personal data]

I [redacted text - personal data] visit home (Wormegay) once every three - weeks. I still spend great amounts of time in the Warren as it continues to make me feel incredibly calmer and improves my quality of life.

On the Mental Health page of the Norfolk County Council's website , www.norfolk.gov.uk/care-support-and-health/health-and-wellbeing/adults-health/mental-health) there is a link to the Wellbeing in Norfolk and Suffolk website which has an online document, 'Five Ways to Wellbeing', which lists ''a set of evidence-based actions which promote people's wellbeing".
The document advises that-people suffering from mental health conditions should"
1. "Connect with the people around you. With family, friends, colleagues and neighbours. At home, work, school or in your local community".
2. "Go for a walk or run. Step outside. Cycle. Play a game. Garden. Dance Exercising makes you feel good. Most importantly, discover a physical activity you enjoy and one hat suits your level of mobility and fitness".
3. "Be curious. Catch sight of the beautiful. Remark on the unusual. Notice the changing seasons. Savour the moment, whether you are walking to work, eating lunch or talking to friends. Be aware of the world around you and what you are feeling: Reflecting on your experiences will help you appreciate what matters to you.

All of these activities can be achieved in the Warren and surrounding natural area. By demolishing the land to build-Silica Sites, local residents will lose the ability to socialise, exercise, relax and more ln a local natural location that is a fundamental part of the community, I believe it would be a horrific loss to the wellbeing of these people and the area if these plans take place.

As well as this, in a Climate Emergency, the plans of the deforestation of this Greenfield site is incredibly backwards and counterproductive. I have not been informed of any benefits that the Silica sites will bring to my community or our environment.

I support and agree with the letter which has been written by Paul Dixon and therefore include it in my own my letter to you:
Norfolk County Council, Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Silica Sand Extraction Area of Search E

In accordance with your advertised Public-Consultation I wish to object to the inclusion of AoS-E as a Preferred Option for Silica Sand Quarrying.
My reasons are as follows:

i) Biodiversltv -
Given that AoS-E is predominantly a Forestry England working plantation, we have here a well regulated environment with conifers and birch variously harvested in a fell and plant cycle. In addition there are avenues of established broad leaf trees of considerable age and individual examples of veteran trees throughout. The soil conditions allow all the native British snakes to thrive, habitats for many English mammals exist here and the mature forest areas are used as breeding habitat by raptors, and other woodland birds. There are several badger setts amongst the plantations. The area includes a designated County Wildlife Site.
On the adjacent Button Fen, within AoS-E, is the Ten Acre ancient woodland.
In the event of quarrying, Natural England imposes an obligation for restoration to make a net gain in Biodiversity terms which would clearly be impossible and AoS-E should therefore be removed from consideration.

ii) Geodiversity:
The 300 acre, 20m high hill at Shouldham Warren is described by the Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership, to which the County Council is affiliated, as:

The hill is a notable , outline of early Cretaceous Carstone with a capping of glacial deposits; it is one of the southernmost outcrops of the Carstone in Norfolk, It is an eroded relict scarp feature shaped by the passage of the Anglian ice sheet about 440,000 years ago. Before that time-the scarp would have been more prominent, perhaps as a range of hills. It contributes to the geodiversity of the county. Again, in the event of quarrying, Natural England imposes an obligation for restoration to make a net gain in Geodiversity terms which would clearly be impossible and AoS-E should be removed from consideration.

iii) Archaeological and Historical Context:

To quote from the Forestry England survey and assessment: "Shouldharn Woods are situated on the edge of the fens, in an area with a long history of settlement throughout human history. Flint artefacts, including a flint "anvil-stone" found at the highest point of Shouldham Warren, reveal prehistoric activity. Cropmarks and finds indicate Bronze Age habitation. In the Roman era Shouldham appears to have been a centre of some importance. Features associated with previous land use survey in the woods. For example, there are Mediaeval warren boundaries, the presence of rhododendron suggests an association with adjacent listed parkland, and there are earthworks and brickwork from a WWII rifle range. Shouldham Warren has enormous archaeological potential and its destruction would clearly be in contradiction of paragraph E6 of your Preferred options document: The Norfolk Historic Environment Service recommend that proposals for extraction avoid areas of palaeoenvironmental potential, the former barrow and the areas of former settlement. The Norfolk Historic Environment Service would not support proposals that result in the destruction of historic earthworks. Again AoS-E should therefore be removed from consideration.

iv) Landscape Value

Without doubt Shouldham Warren has'lntrinslc landscape value as a hill feature and to lose it would significantly detract from the area's landscape character. It rises dramatically out of the surrounding, almost sea-level, fen and farm land to a height of more than 20m. The notion expressed in paragraph E8 that PRoWs could be diverted and reinstated-as part of the Warren's future restoration is quite absurd. Be in no doubt-that if Shouldham Warren is excavated it will be lost forever. Again I submit that AoS-E should therefore be removed from consideration.

v) Leisure, Recreation and Well-being.

It is impossible to overstate the value of Shouldham Warren to local and regional populations for leisure and recreation. It is used extensively for walking and running, and by cyclists, horse riders and dog-owners. One can scarcely visit the Warren in daylight hours without meeting other people enjoying and making use of the area for exercise, and gaining a sense of well-being thereby. The community value is inestimable and gives every reason why AoS-E should be removed from your consideration.

vi) Officer Comments.

Much has been made of the statement by Natural England in response to the Initial Consultation, viz, "agree with the conclusions regarding the designated sites" This remark is however prefaced by a list of conditions, stipulations and requirements with which in the case of AoS-E, and Shouldham Warren in particular, compliance is literally impossible. Natural England call for a net increase in, Geodiversitv and Biodiversity over the industrialised period of any quarry site which is clearly unachievable. Were this geological, topographical and geographical feature to be destroyed it cannot in any sense be restored or re-created.
Please note that the inclusion of AoS-E specifically contradicts Norfolk County Council's Environmental Policy of April 2016 where is stated- "As part of its commitment to foster environmental, social and economic well-being of the community, Norfolk County Council will work towards enabling people in Norfolk to benefit from an enhanced environment and quality of life. The County Council will ensure that these principles are integrated into the decisions of all its services - and will: 1. Protect and enhance the county's wildlife and the quality and character of the Norfolk, landscape and coast; encouraging the variety of habitats and species to deliver the aims of Biodiversity 2020. 2. Ensure nature contributes to the economic and social health of urban and rural areas in Norfolk for current and future generations.

The inclusion of AoS-E also specifically contradicts the National Planning Policy Framework, section 15, Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment, paragraphs 170,174 and 175, which mandates planning refusal in the circumstances which apply to Shouldham Warren.

In conclusion I would say that, taking together the unique features of AoS-E:, Norfolk County Council would be going against its own and national environmental policies if it continues with this proposal. It would be breaking faith with its own affiliated organisations: The Norfolk Biodiversity and Geodiversity Partnerships. It would be permitting an act of the most appalling vandalism and, perhaps most importantly of all, it would be failing in its Duty of Stewardship of the County for future generations.

I understand that you are required to provide some areas in Norfolk for silica sand extraction. We are no strangers here to quarries. However, there are many locations where smaller, less intrusive, less damaging and destructive sites could be created, without perhaps the economies of scale and increased profitability that could be earned here, though still economically viable.

I hope I have been able to give you every reason why you should now reprieve Shouldham Warren and remove AoS-E from your considerations
I hope that you consider the wellbeing of local residents and all other people that use the Shouldham Warren and surrounding area.