AOS E - land to the north of Shouldham

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.
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.

I wish to object to the above proposed Area of Search in the strongest possible terms, there being many reasons for my opposition. I fail to understand how Norfolk County Council can even be considering it as it contravenes many pledges and policies made by the government and the County Council.

My first objection is the blatant way in which an area previously designated as 'Not allocated' (SIL02) is, to a large extent, still within the boundaries of AOSE. SIL02 was not allocated due to the concerns put forward by the MoD/DIO in the Initial Consultation phase, so how come a large part of it is now included in this Area of Search? The overlapping area has already been searched for silica sand which is known to be present and there is a willing landowner, so it cannot now be part of an Area of Search. NCC has agreed with the MOD (DIO) objection to SIL 02 that the WHOLE of SIL02 should be removed but has consciously chosen to ignore it by not removing the overlap area of SIL 02 and AOS entirely. I object to this and demand that NCC removes this overlap area from their M&WLP. One assumes that if this area was granted, the overlap would present a useful 'foot in the door' for further expansion.

Being sandwiched between RAF Marham and a vast sand quarry would make life quite unbearable for the residents of Marham and neighbouring villages. We were all aware of the RAF base and its attendant noise when we moved here, but we certainly did not choose to have a quarry in such close proximity on the other side. Not only would there be continual noise, but dust and pollution, having an extremely adverse effect on the health and welfare of our population, particularly the older community and the children just at the start of their lives. It is a well-known fact that silica dust is extremely hazardous, causing lung disease and lung cancer.
A further objection is that it would destroy a glorious area of forest which hundreds of people in this locality and beyond love and appreciate. It is used by so many individuals, families and clubs for a wide range of activities, including walking, dog-walking, horse-riding, cycling and running. It is our community's public open space used daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions. Any ideas of diverting public rights of way would be absolutely impossible and so, for these reasons, the proposal should be removed from the Plan.

Indeed, the inclusion of AOS-E specifically contradicts Norfolk County Council's Environmental Policy of April 2016 where it 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."

Any such plans would totally contravene this policy.

We are all aware of how many people of all ages suffer with mental health issues and that one of the first things they are advised to do is to get outside, to interact with nature. It's free and it works! And yet, here you are, considering allowing this area to be destroyed in its entirety.

The same report also mentions 'protecting and enhancing the county's wildlife'. How will that work with 60+ endangered species living in the proposed area to be razed to the ground? There are birds, mammals, moths, butterflies, amphibians, snakes to name but a few, all of which must be protected in order to conserve them, not wiped out for ever.
The trees themselves need to be protected as they play such a vital role in combatting climate change and pollution at a time when the Government is pledging to plant millions of new trees to help to save our planet. Why destroy all these trees in such alarming times?
Should this horror be foisted upon us, I fail to see how the surrounding roads, even if some improvements were made, could handle the endless line of HGV lorries, trundling back and forwards to the plant at Leziate. As it is now, the A10 and the Hardwick roundabout are frequently at a standstill due to the heavy volume of traffic, so adding to this would cause total gridlock.
Finally, research has shown that the proposed area is a unique landscape as it includes an ancient hill feature dating back thousands of years. Any promise of restoring this feature would be completely impossible and so it would be lost forever. There are, no plans for restoration of the area after the years of quarrying had ceased and we all know from living near to other former areas worked by Sibelco e.g. Bawsey, that whole areas are now virtually abandoned, partially fenced off and are highly dangerous. The local communities have gained absolutely nothing from this destruction of the landscape and one can see that the outlook for Shouldham Warren and its environs would be similar.
For the reasons outlined above, I sincerely hope that you will remove AOSE from your Mineral & Waste Plan as it would totally destroy the landscape, wildlife, geodiversity and amenities for a huge area of West Norfolk for EVER! This cannot be allowed to happen.

I am appalled at the prospect of Shoulden Warren being used for the extraction of minerals. It would ruin the quality of life in our village:
a. The C55 is already cracking and single-track in places, so could not take heavy wagons
b. With prevailing S.W winds we would suffer noise and injurious dust pollution
c. Light pollution as we do not have street lights
d. Serious loss of recreational space
There is a bridal way to Shouldham, our nearest pub, and two footpaths (W. Briggs to Shouldham and Shouldham to Pentney Abbey)
South of Kings Lynn most land is used for growing crops and there is very little land for mountain biking, orienteering, horse-riding, running (Ryston Runners Grand Prix) keep-fit and dog walking. To my knowledge there are over 60 dogs in Wormegay, many of whom are exercised daily in Shouldham Warren.
Slow worms and glow worms are 2 of the more unusual species found in the warren, In winter thee are several large rookeries which could be a cause of bird-strike for planes from RAF Marham, which frequently over-fly Wormegay, which is in the northern flight-path.
On the edges of the warren there are some very old oak trees which would be of concern to the Woodland Trust. In the warren there are the remains of firing ranges used for training troops in WW2.
We are urged to plant trees to reduce CO2 not destroy acres of woodland.
Mineral extraction in Shouldham Warren would be disastrous for Wormegay, bad for W. Norfolk and the planet in general.

I am writing in the hope that plans to allow quarrying at Shouldham Warren will be refused. I with many others young and old, walk or ride there for many hours every week. Its peace and tranquillity make a haven for people and animals.
In a time when we recognise the desperate need to re-wild and reforest, it seems cruel and unwise to threaten an area so popular and health-giving.

I object most strongly to the hideous plans you seem to be entertaining for Shouldham Warren. With every turn in the news there is enormous emphasis on climate change and locally, from Norwich Council, the need to plant new trees to reduce carbon gasses and protect the environment and yet you in your wisdom seem hellbent on destroying what we treasure and work hard to preserve for future generations SHAME ON YOU. Doesn't a young girl like Greta Thunberg make you ashamed of your two faced action in destroying the environment in Shouldham.

I wish to register my strong opposition to the proposed quarrying of our much loved & used Shouldham Warren (areas AOSE-AOSJ) In my opinion, destroying our green lungs here would be as great a crime as what is being done in the rain forest area. It is simply an appalling idea. There are so many valid reasons to oppose this plan so in no particular order & trying to be as brief as possible;
HEALTH:
We are already a very lazy & obese society. The government is encouraging us all to take more exercise to help combat a variety of problems such as heart disease, diabetes & for our mental health. Our local health services are already over-stretched so why remove this wonderful location on our doorstep that is perfect for walking; riding, cycling, running, orienteering, etc - that also provides us with an opportunity for peace and tranquillity. All in all perfect for our physical & mental health.
TREES:
Greenhouse gasses? Climate change? How many trees has the UK government pledged to plant in the next 30 years? I believe we are talking billions. It would appear that NCC are hardly helping achieve that target by allowing 100,000's of trees to be destroyed.
WILDLIFE:
The warren is a haven to so many species of flora and fauna. Every season is a joy there. The little river that runs along the edge of the Warren is host to kingfishers, herons, swans, etc. We have even seen an otter in it. We cannot afford to lose any of our wildlife. They all contribute to the circle of life.
HISTORY HERITAGE:
Just looking at the map of the proposed area, you can see how important it was historically with all the sites of old priories, abbeys, castle etc. The Domesday Book lists all these areas. I believe natural England cites at least 6 areas of special interest within the warren itself.
POLLUTION:
The proposed site is coming within 250m of Wormegay which means every home will be affected with noise, dust, light pollution. Everyone will be exposed to all sorts of possible side effects which once again would put more strain on our health services. Can the council afford to pay out vast damages should any health problems prove to be directly linked to quarrying activities? If our access to the Warren is denied where do we go to try & have a healthier life style? Where do we go for fresh air?
CONGESTION:
Ever tried going down the A10 towards King's Lynn in the morning? The proposed route for lorries - possibly 600 per week? Is the A134 passing directly behind the school - oh the pleasure of the children inhaling all those diesel fumes during playtime! Then onto A10 to the Hardwick roundabout, then presumably on to either the A17 to Middleton & taking the very narrow turn left by the church - or they go to the hospital roundabout (more fumes for the patients!) & take the Gayton road to Leziate and down to the Sibelco Site. The road is narrow & really unsuitable for a vast number of lorries. We simply don't have the infrastructure to support this.
QUARRYING:
Quarrying in itself is not a sustainable activity. Why are local councils not recycling more glass? The quarry would bring no benefit to area in terms of employment & obviously all profits would go to Sibelco in Belgium. This proposed site is a conveniently cheap option for them.

I can only plead that this site does not receive the go - ahead for all the reasons listed above. Everything seems to be contrary to what the UK Government is allegedly aiming for. The Warren is our amenity in the village of Wormegay. We have no shop, post office, pubs etc. The once weekly bus service that runs through the village that elderly residents rely on is shortly to be withdrawn. When you move to a rural location you accept these limits & our access to the woods has more than made up for other privations. Please do not leave us with nothing at all.

Thank you for your letter dated 13 Sept 2019, and for giving me a second chance to express my sadness at the proposal for a quarry to be constructed so near to Shouldham and Marham.
I hope my first letter explained the reasons for objecting strongly against the proposal.
My concerns, and more, are all included in the objection paper, which I have signed and returned to you with this letter.
I have lived in Shouldham for almost 15 years. It is a pleasant and quiet village, which the residents take good care of. I fear, that if the quarry goes ahead, Shouldham and certainly the surrounding area will not be the place I chose to live in all those years ago.
Most importantly, I hope that the very slightest risk of health and safety problems, plus the knowledge of the destruction of beautiful countryside i.e. Shouldham Warren, and the loss of precious wildlife, will be seriously taken into account before a decision is made.
I hope very much that the County Council who look after us, will vote against this unwanted quarry.

REF: OBJECTION TO AOS E Land between Marham and Shouldham including a Shouldham Warren
LEAVE OUR COUNTRYSIDE ALONE
Please find attached a letter provided by CATS Action Group, who are campaigning against the proposed Norfolk Minerals and Local Waste Plan, which I would like you to accept as my formal objection.
I would also like to explain my personal reasons for my objection.
My husband and I retired to Shouldham in November 2017 after many years of working very hard so we could enjoy a good retirement. We chose to relocate to an area that was quiet, clean and which provided us with a quality of life after working hard for our retirement. Amongst other things, my husband wanted chickens and fresh eggs. I wanted a dog so I / we could walk and enjoy our beautiful countryside.
When choosing our retirement destination, we were amazed to find the village of Shouldham. It fit our remit perfectly including the fact that we would have Shouldham Warren on our doorstep. It was and remains perfect in every way. I trust it will remain perfect.
Well we successfully moved here. Kev got his chickens and I got my dog. We were in seventh heaven. Then shortly after we moved in the nightmare began!
How could this happen. Nothing showed up on the environmental reports we were provided with by our solicitor. WHY?
This proposal has been in the pipeline for longer than we have lived here it seems! So, I ask again, WHY?
So, we have spent our life saving for our retirement and bought a lovely house in a beautiful village adjacent to a magnificent forest to be told the forest could turn into a quagmire and / or a dustbath. Let's face it, Sibelco don't have a very good reputation regarding restoration. Our houses, gardens, cars and most importantly, our children and grandchildren will be covered in dust. Our health will deteriorate. Our homes will be unsellable. Where does that leave the residents of Shouldham?
This proposal is an absolute disgrace. Our rural idyll will look like a desert instead of the current beautiful landscape that we people of Shouldham are fortunate to reside in. We enjoy watching the wildlife - what will happen to them. The attached objection explains about the need for trees to
combat pollution and provide a haven for endangered bats etc so I won't repeat this information in my covering letter. But, I speak for the trees and wildlife because they don't have voices!
If I can explain further. My husband and I previously lived in a large town and 22 years ago we moved to a village with a population of approximately 2,000. In the 20 years we lived there we saw and experienced the effects of new housing estates being added left, right and centre - literally! Our population was quadrupled (maybe more) and the infrastructure wasn't in place to support the additional cars, etc. However, this could've been called progress as people need houses to live in. Worse still, our village was bombarded with convoys of lorries, which were being used to move tons and tons of earth, aggregates and landfill in order to build yet another estate miles away from us. Unfortunately, our village was the only access route and our village was decimated with traffic, noise and dirt. Oh boy, is the proposal being tabled regarding Shouldham Warren ringing large bells now!
This is now our threat yet again and this threat is overwhelmingly unacceptable. Might I add that having a quarry such as this proposal, is not progress!
As you can see, my husband and I live on New Road - is it the intention initially to have lorries booming past our beautiful and currently quiet existence? I hope not. I am aware that if this proposal goes ahead, there are plans to build a road so as not to affect local residents further but I've heard empty promises before and lived with the consequences of said empty promises! We can't even have local buses coming past our house now due to the congestion and the width of Westgate Street so god help us on New Road. Because New Road will be your only available access route!
Why on earth does silica sand need to be excavated anyway. In this day and age why can't recycled glass be used? It is in other climate conscious countries! We, as a family, recycle all our glass, etc. Are we wasting our time and energy sorting out the wheat from the chaff each week?
May I also add that Shouldham Warren attracts lots of visitors in the form of walkers, with and without dogs, cyclists, horse riders, etc. So, the Warren is not only a thing of natural beauty but also a fabulous means of exercise, which is what the government and local government promotes to people of all ages. Getting out in the fresh air is known to reduce stress, which is currently a massive issue in people's health problems. To take away great swathes of Shouldham Warren would have a detrimental affect by taking away this opportunity but also with the double whammy of pollution. Visitors to this area would cease if this attraction were no longer here. The Kings Arms pub, which was saved by the community and which is currently being refurbished and extended to meet demand, would certainly suffer. As would Chalk and Cheese, our local bed and breakfast, not to mention other businesses in the area who rely on tourism. This proposal will harm our local industry and render it stone dead without our visitors!
Finally, I have to ask, have you actually visited the Warren at Shouldham or the village itself? If you haven't, you should. If you have, then you should know it's the correct and proper thing to withdraw Shouldham Warren from this utterly ridiculous proposal.

RE: PROPOSED AOS E Land between Marham and Shouldham and including Shouldham Warren.
As a resident of Marham for over 11 years I must unreservedly object to the proposed AOS E including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly preferred area SIL 02. I believe that Norfolk County council are misleading local resident's by announcing the removal of SIL 02 from the Norfolk Minerals and waste plan, when in reality a third of the proposed site is now included in the AOS E.
If this area of search becomes the new preferred choice, the development will have a devastating impact on 2 rural communities, already affected by a rapidly expanding RAF base of strategic national importance, who have formally objected to the original SIL 02 proposal.
In particular my objections are based on the following grounds:
Health/Safety and Environmental objections,
*Increased levels of noise, light and waste pollution. The proposal includes 24hr operation of this quarry. Marham already has high levels of noise pollution from military activity, adding to this is an unreasonable request of the community.
*It is the major area of dark sky between Marham airbase and Middleton aggregates at Pentney. The increased light pollution would adversely affect the Bat populations within this area and other nocturnal wildlife.
*The site is known for its keen and prevailing North and North westerly winds which will aggravate the noise and dust pollution.
*The River Nar is a SSSI under Section 28 of the Wildlife and country act 1981. It is a chalk bed river and an integral part of this landscape. It supports an abundance of wildlife and protected species such as White Clawed Crayfish, Kingfisher, Barn Owls and Water voles to name a few. This eco structure would be irrevocably damaged should there be any attempt to take minerals from this area or construction of a dredging pipeline in the proposed site.
*Native and migrating wild birds use this land including, Nightjars, Buzzards, Red Kites, Bearded Tits, Fieldfare and Lapwing some of which are protected species.
*The Nar valley and Shouldham Warren are of high amenity value to local residents.
*This is the only proposed site within a high- risk flood area. Flood risk would be exacerbated by removing ancient drainage ditches and soak away land.
*No information provided regarding the impact of mineral extraction on local water table/supply and water quality.

Infrastructure objections,
*The road system is classified as rural with its surface struggling and in poor condition generally.
*Existing roads are unsuitable for HGV's and plant access. Reflecting this RAF traffic is prohibited from the village.
*Increased traffic volume on A47 and A10 will impact negatively on already busy roads.

Economic objections,
*No proposed benefits to either village.
*No additional jobs for local residents.
*Reduction in house price values. Creation of "trapped "residents unable to sell their houses.
*Potential impact on household insurance due to increased flood risk.

Historical buildings,
*Pentney Abbey, Nar Bone Mill are sites of historical interest and must be protected from unwanted disturbances if there are to remain preserved for future generations.

Health objections,
*There is higher than national average of Lung related conditions (Including COPD, Emphysema and Asthma) in these communities. Exposure to pollutants and increased silica dust exposure will have a significant impact on their health.
*Loss of public rights of way to access the Nar valley and Shouldham Warren will impact negatively on physical and mental wellbeing.
*Increased stress and anxiety regarding, noise and pollution will have a detrimental effect on overall health.

Please take these above points as my formal objection to this proposed AOS E

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

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.
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 not put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection,

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.

"Sorry No Quarry", a very polite slogan being used, I'd prefer "Don't be a plank and destroy The Warren"

I'm a resident of Shouldham and was quiet upset to see the proposal above. This area of land, in particular Warren and associated footpaths are used twice a week by myself and family. We use this natural space all the time, I try to get my young family including 2 and 5 year old outside and enjoying countryside, appreciating it's surroundings as much as possible. The benefits this area provides, fitness, mental health and social benefits. My daughter and I built a den two years and have shared this den now with other families more recently. Subsequently my daughter has made friends thru the Warren. We meet people all the time in The Warren and footpaths around from all walks of life, some regulars but young/old. The spectrum of people using this area is amazing and I'm sure not all are even aware of these plans to destroy a high % of the warren and put offline a massive area of fenland for decades. They're running clubs, bike clubs, walking clubs, horse riders, dog walkers, the list goes on, using this amazing space. Many find the warren a spiritual place and I'll see people praying or having a family picnic, spending quality time with family. Forest Church has been active in the warren for years also, which brings numerous local families together on a regular basis.

Furthermore, areas of the warren are not logged by forestry commission but shown under the area for the proposed quarry. These areas provide a unique habit for fauna and flora, they're been undisturbed for a very long time. I'm not going to list all the animals in the woods as it doesn't take a genius to know most but I thought adders were a protect species. Yet it's being considered to destroy an area they live in. In addition, I thought the warren had numerous sites of scientific interest and scheduled monuments recognised by historic England, what will happen to these unique sites.

An absolute concern for all within a large radius has to be particles of sand / dust getting airborn and potentially causing serious health concerns (i.e. adverse respiratory health). Despite any best intentions and procedures put in place on the extraction to minimise dust or particles in the air, this will not prevent it happening. We have had some very dry summers recently and existing quarries / extraction processes have struggled massively with dust. Given 3 primary schools lie within 2 to 3 miles of said site, surely this is a huge concern. The wind picks up across the fenland already, you strip back and cut trees down further, you'd open that land and adjoining land up to this issue further!

Please record this as my objection,

Objection to AOS E - land between Marham and Shouldham, including 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.

As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the MoD 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'. The economic cost of a mishap with the planes at RAF Marham is an unaffordable risk!

The permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees etc. And I severely object to the negative impact on villagers' 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, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing.

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. Continuing on from this I also 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.

And finally - where are any 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. Sibelco has a very poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction. The company has not been 'a good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns. If left as lakes, where is the monetary incentive for those few avaricious landowners who have agreed to this project - far better for them to have a landfill site and still reap benefits from the majority. Where is your guarantee that this used space will not be used as landfill?

Please record this as my objection.

I am writing to register my objection to planning application AOS E and overlap with SIL02. Although I do not live in the area, I am a frequent visitor to Shouldham Warren as I have close family and friends in the area and Shouldham Warren is a regular and favourite walk.

I was appalled to learn that Norfolk County Council's Mineral and Waste Local Plan entails the destruction of Shouldham Warren to allow a foreign-based company (Sibelco) to mine for silica sand. Moreover, an area that had been rejected as a site is now partially included in the current plan, thus reneging on a decision already made and which appears deceitful to say the least.

At a time when the opportunity to walk and play in open, green spaces has been recognised of immense value to peoples' physical and mental health, it seems an entirely retrograde step to destroy a much used and greatly loved local resource of this kind. Moreover, Norfolk County Council is surely aware not only of the need to retain, and indeed increase, tree cover in the UK as a means of soaking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere but also to protect and enhance biodiversity of flora and fauna. The County Council is fortunate to have such a large tree covered area with a diversity of flora and fauna within its boundary and should be doing everything possible to protect this natural resource.

Is the Council to receive any income from Sibelco if the proposal is allowed? If so what do they plan to spend it on and can they demonstrate how any proposal can possibly be of greater benefit to the community than that of enhancing peoples' physical and mental health, protecting the biodiversity of native flora and fauna and contributing to reduction of greenhouse gases?

At a time when protection of the environment and the need to enhance people's physical and mental health are high priorities nationally, surely Norfolk County Council has an opportunity to demonstrate that it is a leader in this respect and not one which behaves in a craven manner towards a foreign-based company?

The planning department should reject this plan in its entirety and recognise that aspects of the County Council's responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens and its environment far outweigh any claims made by the department dealing with minerals and waste.

Phase 2 Consultation. AOS E & SIL 02 & OVERLAP.
Please accept this e mail as my objection.

I object to mining proposals in AOS E and the area known as SIL 02, including the overlap of both areas which I will refer to in this objection as 'the overlap of SIL 02'. I object under the following headings:
● Economic
● Environmental
● Historical assets
● Health

Economic- I object to the planned proposal in AOS E and the overlap of SIL 02 on economic grounds namely-
1. The enormous increased risk of birdstrikes to the aircraft flying at RAF Marham. The sums of money that would be required to replace just one F35 aircraft is more than Sibelco's annual turnover in the UK. The cost of a repair from a birdstrike can run to £millions. There has been a very relevant objection from the DIO/RAF this was given serious consideration which led to SIL 02 being taken off the proposal/consultation plan .However, this was a deceptive move by the NCC because 1) the SIL 02 was not completely removed, some is still in AOS E and 2)There is a Aerodromes Safeguarding Zone with a 13 km restriction to safe guard airports/air bases. If SIL 02 has been removed, due to the military objection then why hasn't AOS E also been eradicated? I object to the complete lack of consistency and transparency in the policy or the procedures of the NCC. As both SIL 02 and AOS E are both within a 13 km Zone surely, they should both be removed. This directly contravenes the National Planning Policy Framework Point 17 h) relating to Aerodrome Safeguarding Zones.
2. There is a minimal increase in employment opportunities.
3. Debatable claims of adding value to the local economy.
4. No independent scrutiny of the amounts of silica sand required; Sibelco, the company with the monopoly for silica sand extraction in Norfolk supply the figures. If they supply the figures, I ask who is monitoring/reviewing their findings/results? For if the figures are not checked how on earth can they be credible? Do the NCC or the Government blindly believe Sibelco? If so, this is extremely concerning when the Government go to great lengths to monitor the Public Sector Institutions. With this in mind it stands to reason that if only one company is used by the NCC/Government to mine for Silica Sand there can be no comparative and therefore they monopolise the market. This is certainly not fair or just and it enables Sibelco to basically hold the Government to ransom, particularly if there are no checks and balances.
5. The loss of prime agricultural land with the loss of local jobs and damage to the local agricultural industry the loss of the land would cause. This at a time when the UK should be looking to increase our own food production with our imminent departure from the EU. It is believed that the overlap area on AOS E and formally SIL 02 is Agricultural land graded 3. It is my understanding that such land should be used for farming.
6. The loss of the natural open spaces that provide the opportunity for exercise and aid with our mental well-being, which in turn decreases the call on medical intervention and a decrease in cost for the NHS.
7. The stunting of community growth that the siting of a quarry would inevitably cause at a time when our Borough Council's Local Plan proposes Marham as one of its primary growth areas.
8. The lack of any plan to improve the recycling of glass, especially clear and flat glass, in order to reduce the amounts of raw materials required, and increase the amount of recycled clear glass cullet used in the manufacture of new glass, is an economic and environmental mistake, without a radical overhaul of the glass recycling plan in Norfolk, NCC is failing the NPPF to "look to recycle before extracting raw materials" The figures are flawed as mentioned previously. The extraction is Not justified as recycling is a reasonable alternative. Economically improved recycling would increase the employment opportunities in Norfolk; environmentally, it would ensure less land (agricultural or otherwise) is destroyed unnecessarily when there are alternatives. This point has been made very strongly on numerous occasions and has never been addressed in any form, 17/10/19 www.norolkcatss.co.uk Objection to Silica Sand Mining in AOS E & SIL 02- Preferred Options Consultation 1.
9. The sites are adjacent to Nar Valley Way, a long-distance public right of way along the Nar River SSSI, which brings many tourists to the area - tourism revenue for local business will be detrimentally affected. Many thousands of pounds have recently been spent upgrading the River Narr and its walkway so where is the economic sense in wrecking something that has so recently been upgraded to ensure the improvement of the community's health and wellbeing in walking it, and encouraging tourism and thus enhancing the economy of the area.
10.The only economic winners are Sibelco, a private Belgian company whom NCC have no obligation to, unlike their obligation to the economic prosperity of the taxpaying Norfolk population and the populations surrounding the proposed areas, and the landowners, who will no doubt be massive financial gainers and who in at least one case don't even use their farm as a main residence .It is believed they stay for the minimum time to claim farming subsidies and have no interaction or interest in the community.
I again object because the NCC Waste and Mineral Plan again directly contravenes Point 17 of the NPPF para 205 states when determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction including to the economy. The quarry would negatively impact our economy, there would be no benefits to the local economy, in fact there would in this instance be a detrimental effect to existing industries that provide local jobs.
It also contravenes NPPF point 17 para 207 relating to the Minerals Planning authorities and the fact that a plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by: preparing an annual Local Aggregate Assessment, either individually or jointly to forecast future demand, based on a rolling average of 10 years' sales data and other relevant local information, and assessment of all supply options(including marine dredged secondary and recycled sources); It is my understanding that there are NO provisions for recycled sources in the plan or in the assessments of "needs". This means that I again object because this plan by the NCC is unsound and entirely inconsistent with National Planning Policies.

Overall, quarrying for silica sand in AOS E and the overlap of SIL 02 do not make economic sense for Norfolk or the UK
Environmental -I object to the planned proposal in AOS E and the overlap of SIL 02 on environmental grounds -
1. The removal of the forests in AOS E ignores the Government's current plan to increase the number of trees in the UK for the benefits to the atmosphere that trees possess.
2. The removal of the forests in AOS E will remove the environment that supports the myriad of flora and fauna they contain, including may species on conservation lists.
2a. In the area AOS E and its overlap, protected bird species such as "woodlark" are present I object to the fact that these will be lost if a quarry is allowed. Presently many children attend the Warren to learn about the outdoors, wildlife and our environment there are few such open spaces in West Norfolk and to grant permission for a quarry is to deny the local community their important recreational opportunity
3. The removal of the forests in AOS E would be an action against the reduction of C02 and is in contravention of the Climate Change Act 2008 and the UK Government's stated aim of reducing to net-zero (1990 level) the volume of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere by 2050. It is also in opposition to the Government's '25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment' - "Planting more trees provides not just new habitats for wildlife - it also helps reduce carbon dioxide levels and can reduce flood risk." - Secretary of State. Destroying hundreds of Hectares of trees and topsoil that are the most effective carbon sinks, whilst having no credible reuse or recycling scheme is unsound, "based on the National Planning Policy Framework"
4. The removal of the forests in AOS E would change the local environment such that the people who currently use them for physical recreation and well-being will be denied that connection with nature which has been proven to promote physical and mental health.
5. The quarrying of silica sand within AOS E and SIL 02 has great potential to pollute the primary and secondary aquifers that lie beneath the area. This would be an ecological disaster for our drinking water.
6. Adverse impacts on the hydro-ecology of the Nar River SSSI, a spring-fed chalk river with high conservation value.
7. What is the NCC plan for when this 'finite' resource runs out? Without such a plan how can NCC possibly make any decision to allow quarrying for minerals that will devastate our environment irrevocably?
8.Shouldham Warren AOS E and its overlap with SIL O2 is predominately private land most of which is leased to the Forestry Commission, this area has been maintained well for years and provides important economic and material (wood) production, I object to the proposal because it sets one Government Department against another and with this in mind surely another area should and definitely could be identified. The NCC have been "lazy" in their approach to the Waste and Mineral Plan, relying purely on Sibelco who have no interest in the local community to identify silica sand sites which definitely cannot be justified. "Our environment is our most precious inheritance" - DEFRA This is certainly not Sibelcos' understanding as their restoration on previous quarry's' have been diabolical.
9. The Badgers Trust believe that Badgers may well be settled in the area of Shouldham Warren and surely the NCC must ensure that this is not the case.

I object to the fact that overall NCC does not have a sound plan to ensure the protection of our environment. The current M&WLP plan directly contradicts the Government's stated objectives for the environment. Paragraph 180 NPPF," Planning policies and decision's" should also ensure that a new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the cumulative effects of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment. In doing so, they should b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and prized for their recreational amenity value for this reason-THERE IS NO OTHER COMPARABLE TRANQUIL AREA/AMENITY OF THIS SIZE IN WEST NORFOLK.
Point 17 of NPPF states that planning policies should b) as far as possible, take account of the contribution that substitute or secondary and recycled materials and minerals waste would make the supply of materials , before considering extraction of primary minerals, whilst aiming to source mineral supplies indigenously; -I object because the NCC has failed to have any modern innovative recycling plans.
Point 17 NPPF f) states that criteria should be set out to ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, taking into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality; there is no definition of "unacceptable adverse impacts" that relate to or share the perspective of the local community/taxpayers- the impacts of a quarry, are numerous, many health impacts have not even been investigated (probably deliberately by Sibelco, because then they and the NCC would be accountable) this impact cannot be acceptable.
I further object to the quarry in relation to point 17 NPPF h) which states "ensure that worked land is reclaimed at the earliest opportunity, taking into account of aviation safety, and that high quality restoration and aftercare of mineral sites takes place:
Point 17 of the NPPF para 205 states when determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction including to the economy.

Historical- I object to the planned proposal in AOS E and the overlap of SIL 02 on historical grounds -
1. A quarry in AOS E and/or the overlap of SIL 02 would irreversibly change the local landscape and affect the historical character of the area and the many historical monuments and their setting. This is supported by NCC's own Historic Environment Impact Assessment of AOS E and SIL 02.
Health-I object to the planned proposal in AOS E and the overlap of SIL 02 on health grounds -
1. To quarry in AOS E or the overlap of SIL 02 would remove an outdoor area used by thousands as their recreational area for physical exercise. 2. Outdoor exercise in areas such as AOS E and the overlap of SIL 02 are proven by research to improve the nations physical and mental health. To lose such areas to mineral quarrying would amount to a contemptuous act on the population and a cost to the tax-payer via the increased workload on the NHS that would be an inevitable consequence.
The company that are the proposers Sibelco have done few studies on the health impact on surrounding communities, particularly sensitive receptors, By failing to do such studies they remain unaccountable for any health issues that occur relating to people living close to the quarry. The only studies have been in relation to the workforce which in itself implies there are unforeseen health issues. I object to the quarry because I believe it is incumbent on the NCC to safeguard the health and welfare of the local community's. The ECHR Article 2 states "Right to life" which could most definitely be affected by a lack of investigation regarding medical/health and safety illness' caused by a quarry.
Article 8 and Protocol 1 Article 1 protects your right to enjoy your property peacefully. This process alone has adversely affected the mental health of the community by stressing residents. I believe that NCC have not been transparent or lawful in relation to their methodology relating to this consultation. NCC have not taken into account the general interests of the society/the local community and the adverse impact on it. I would argue because of the NCCs lack of addressing the recycling problem their actions if the plan is progressed will not be in the public interest
Additionally, the consultation process undertaken by NCC has lacked transparency and engagement with the community and was executed poorly - i.e. letters sent to only 10 households within an arbitrary boundary of the site, ineffective methodologies for consultation, residents' concerns raised in the first consultation have been ignored. NCC is deliberately obfuscating the issue and misleading consultees by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is still there within AOS E.
The Communities of Shouldham and Marham already deal with the RAF noise pollution, Shouldham Warren, all of AOS E and SIL 02 is an area of beauty and solace, it is absolutely unjust to also consider putting a quarry in the area.

Objection to AOS E (Land to the north of Shouldham) and SIL 02 (land at Shouldham and Marham)

I object to AOS E and SIL 02, including Shouldham Warren the overlap between these two sites in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan (M&WLP). I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council (NCC) continues to employ a public consultation process without scrutinising its efficiency and that is clearly not fit for purpose - a fact exacerbated by a steady stream of false or misleading information both directly from NCC, such as "SIL 02 has been designated as unsuitable" (when in fact a third of that "preferred area" has simply been re-classified as AOS E) or via NCC and Borough Councillors who have advised local residents with messages such as: "don't worry about the consultation phase, you want to keep your powder dry for planning permission phase", "no more than 3 people can object from any single address," "weighting is given to those objections from residents living within 250m of the proposed sites" Given the strong criticisms already levelled at NCC regarding this current consultation, the sheer breadth of misinformation now goes beyond the pale of honest mistakes or poor communication and starts to suggest a coordinated effort to dissuade members of the public from participating in this process.

All four "key principles" set out in NCC's adopted Statement of Community Involvement have been violated:

1) Accountability (taking citizens' views into account) - concerns raised in the 460 responses to the first consultation in August 2018 have been ignored. Residents raised concerns about impact on health, wellbeing, environment, biodiversity, their rights to peaceful enjoyment of their properties, no benefit to local communities, failure to improve recycling of glass already in circulation, lack of restoration plans, and failure to conduct an effective and transparent process by NCC. The August 2019 Mineral Plan states that the "responses received have been considered in the production of the second public consultation document, the Preferred Options", however the 'Preferred Options' only reflected the concerns of the MOD and Historical Environment Services. NONE of the concerns raised by residents were taken into account or addressed.

2) Accessibility (consultation is clear and genuinely accessible) - an accessible consultation should not be written in incomprehensible language and should not require 1000s of hours of effort to understand and participate. It should not rely on concerned members of the public informing the wider community or rallying various consultee groups to respond. It should not require the public to defend and ensure existing government policies are complied with. It should not require an MP's involvement to ensure that public concern is registered and addressed.

3) Inclusivity (groups of the community are not excluded) - NCC deemed it reasonable to only send 10 letters to residents within an arbitrary 250m boundary of the site, despite the proposed silica mine being the largest in the country and affecting thousands of people, including disadvantaged and minorities, and the thousands of people who come to the Warren to enjoy the little nature that is left in West Norfolk.

4) Efficiency (ensuring methodology delivers results) - NCC continues to use the same ineffective methodology for consultation: in the 2015 consultation, AOS E received 7
responses; in the 2018 consultation, due to the efforts of CATSS local campaign group, AOS E and SIL02 received 460 responses. Other areas resulted in the same low level response (SIL01 - 8, AOS F - 3, AOS I - 4, AOS J - 6), because NCC continues to use ineffective methods of engagement with the residents of Norfolk.

I will continue to outline the reasons for my objections, however it is clear that trust in the process, NCC and Borough Councils is gone, as NCC only does the bare minimum in order to meet what it perceives as its legal obligations, and there is no interest in ensuring genuine, meaningful public participation, nor any evidence of taking the feedback and public concerns into account.

Economic objections

I object to the proposal as it is detrimental to the local economy and financially unsound. There are no jobs created, the only economic benefit would be to the privately-owned Belgian company, Sibelco. The silica sand is not used in Norfolk, it entirely exported elsewhere, including overseas. Much of the SIL 02 overlap is high grade agricultural farmland, used for growing sugar beets, which does contribute to job creation and income in the local area. It is unsound to be destroying farmland to dig up minerals for export on the eve of Brexit, when the aim of national policies is to ensure food security. Parts of AOS E is a managed wood plantation, again creating jobs and a supporting low carbon biomass industry.

Loss of a large green space used by thousands of people in West Norfolk will have a real impact on human physical and mental health, putting more financial pressure on the already overstretched NHS.

Loss of such a large carbon sink, hundreds of hectares of woodland and topsoil, at a time when the country is already struggling to meet its legally binding carbon reduction commitments means more expensive investments in carbon reductions elsewhere.

This proposal goes completely against the Local Development Plan for West Norfolk (https://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/homepage/257/local_development_plan), which has identified Marham as a growth area, and envisages a place where "people want to be part of the success story that is West Norfolk, drawn her to live, work, invest and visit... to take advantage of quality of life... supporting strong, vibrant, healthy communities... with a access to local services that support the health, social and cultural well-being of local communities... with new development located and designed to be better adapted to climate change and risk of flooding... protecting and enhancing our justifiable famous natural and historic environment and ensuring growth of the borough makes sustainability a central principle of our vision". Nobody wants to live next to a silica mine, and this proposal has already negatively affected the local area economically through dampening the housing market.

Shouldham Warren and Nar Valley Way running along a Nar River SSSI are a major tourism and recreational destination, used by thousands of walkers, cyclists, horse riders and runners - contributing income to local tourism infrastructure and facilities. Pentney Priory Gatehouse, currently a wedding venue, overlooks the overlap are of AOS E and SIL 02 - this is an example of a specific business that would become non-viable if the view they currently experience over open land is turned into a working quarry.

MOD has already objected to the proposal given the risk of birdstrike to the aircraft at RAF Marham, the main operating base for the for the F35 Lightning II, an aircraft that costs £100+ million. The major damage to the singe engine of this aircraft, let alone loss of even one aircraft due to damage
from a bird-strike would be financially intolerable and a major blow to the defence of the UK and our wider interests. The other costs of a crash landing of the aircraft to cover emergency services and long-term care and support to the affected people on the ground, are incalculable but would run into the tens if not hundreds of million pounds.

NCC has failed to consider other economically viable alternatives, such as investment in modern glass reuse and recycling as are practiced in mainland Europe. Reuse through glass deposit schemes and recycling would create new jobs and contribute to meeting the country's carbon commitments, preserve and sustain the stocks of silica sand, protect the biodiversity of the countryside and health of the residents of Norfolk.

Environmental objections

I object to the fact that the plan would destroy the local landscape and hundreds of hectares of woodland of Shouldham Warren and farmland of Marham Fen. These areas include designated country wildlife sites and are adjacent to a Nar River SSSI - they are important habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. The government has declared a climate emergency, and stated that the UK will have to plant 1.5 billion trees if it is to meet its target of net zero emissions by 2050 - that's 50 million trees every year, so this plan goes against national policies.

I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. This allocation of this site places NCC in direct contravention of its own Environmental Policy (https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/what-we-do-andhow-we-work/policy-performance-and-partnerships/policies-and-strategies/naturalenvironment-policies/environmental-policy) - especially the following points:
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.
3. Improve our environmental performance by reducing any actual or potential pollution and comply with all legislative, regulatory or other requirements, within the framework of an environmental management system.
4. Help, inspire and enable our residents to reduce, reuse and recycle much more of their waste so that they keep what's left over to a minimum.

Health Objections

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. NCC has done nothing to address concerns about silicosis, which is presently only classified as an 'Industrial Disease'. Silica mine workers experience high-density, short-term exposure to dust are at risk for acute silicosis, and occupational hazard. Chronic silicosis and other lung
conditions, on the other hand, are known to occur with lower-level exposures over time and is more likely to be a Public Health threat (https://www.mnmed.org/MMA/media/MinnesotaMedicine-Magazine/Commentary-Feyereisn.pdf, https://www.ewg.org/research/danger-inthe-air, http://www.hazards.org/dust/silica.htm). This industrial categorisation allows companies like Sibelco to dismiss public health concerns. However, there is complete absence of any peer reviewed, independent research on the long-term health effects of lower dosage effects of silica exposure on the general public. It is unacceptable for NCC to locate large, long-term, extraction operations close to inhabited areas and put thousands of people at risk.

Furthermore, the loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health - mental and physical. Shouldham Warren and Marham Fen are Green Spaces for our community and for thousands of visitors who come here to run, cycle, horse ride and walk. There is no other space of this size in West Norfolk. Loss of this public amenity would have a detrimental effect on the physical and mental health of thousands of people. The social and emotional impact of losing our outdoor area and nature should not be underestimated and is unacceptable.

Historical Objections

Due in part to the heritage impact assessment 2/3 of the SIL 02 site has been 'not allocated' in the M&WLP. However, the remaining third, which forms the overlap with AOS E, is located directly South West of Pentney Priory Gatehouse, and has an unacceptable impact on the historical environment and the setting of this heritage asset, given that the flat fen landscape. There are unobstructed views all the way to Pentney Priory Gatehouse from the elevated position of Marham and from the Spring Lane that will presumably be used to get access the site. Any bunting or screening would be obstructive in its own right. The historical impact assessment proposed a 2Km exclusion Zone to the East of Pentney Priory Gatehouse as sufficient not to impinge on that landscape; the assessment cites that any bunding would impose an unacceptable constraint on that view. However, only 1Km is proposed to the South of this historic building; with a similar flat landscape over the Fen towards Spring Lane this is at odds with protecting the view towards or away from the Gatehouse.

There are other historical monuments including the remnants of an Augustinian Priory, which has not been studied with settlements and artefacts undiscovered and lost forever if quarrying was to take place. The centre of AOS E, Shoudham Warren, is a medieval landscape and an area of high archaeological possibility. The area rises above the landscape and is highly likely to be a medieval farmed network. The remnants of an ancient spring on the hill of the Warren with a Rhododendron avenue being an important area for archaeological study. Within the Warren itself, areas used in WW2 are preserved and a rifle butt within close proximity of the entrance; the historic links to our past evident and in need of protection.

Just to the south of Shouldham Warren and on the northeast extremity of Shouldham village, lie the earthworks of Shouldham. There are also buried remains of part of a gravel road that runs along the south side of Abbey farm. This road is potentially Roman; approx 5m wide. The road east of the adjacent field can be seen from the air. Roman pottery has been found in this area and archaeological remains are possible within the vicinity. There is also thought to be bronze age artefacts and the area should be protected for its historical setting and for archaeological study.

A quarry in AOS E and/or the overlap of SIL 02 the Preferred Area would irreversibly change the local landscape and affect the historical character of the area and the many historical
monuments and their setting. This is supported by NCC's own Historic Environment Impact Assessment of AOS E and SIL 02.

Objections based on lack of road infrastructure

It is assumed that Sibelco's pipeline idea is no longer applicable, so any removal of spoil, trees, and eventually sand, will have to be by road. The construction phase and the sand transportation will require the movement of thousands of HGVs on the narrow rural and village lanes that are entirely unsuitable for heavy machinery. No proposals have been made about how the road infrastructure will be developed to address this, but it is clear that the villages would be suffer from the noise and pollution from any heavy machinery and additional traffic, and that other Norfolk roads would be detrimentally affected.

Objections based on lack of lack of restoration plans

A further objection relates to the lack of any restoration plans proposed by NCC. This development would blight the area for decades. There is no promise of any benefit to the community in terms of increased access, no biodiversity gains proposed, no landscape enhancements. 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. Objections based on lack of recycling plans

I object because this plan contravenes national planning policies which demand that recycled materials are taken into account before considering extraction of primary materials. Silica sand is a finite material, and national policies call for their sustainable use and conservation for future generations. NCC has made no attempt within the M&WLP to discuss how improved reuse, including deposit schemes, or improved recycling of glass within Norfolk, nor indeed the rest of the country, would reduce the amount of silica sand (primary material) extracted each year. Improved glass recycling and reuse would ensure the reserves of silica sand are preserved, thereby extending the period of self-sufficiency in glass manufacturing within the UK and comply with national policies on waste management. Without a serious plan to implement glass reuse and recycling the M&WLP is fundamentally flawed.

Sibelco claims to be a leader in recycling in Europe and boasts state-of-the-art recycling technologies, however here in Norfolk show no leadership or business creativity, and just want to keep extract raw materials at the same rate, destroying communities and turning nature into industrial wastelands. It is a wasted opportunity for Sibelco to become a 'neighbour of choice' as they supposedly strive to be (https://www.sibelco.com/wp-content/uploads/codeof-sustainable-conduct.pdf)











Objection based on the fact that the plan inconsistent with national policies and NCC policies, and thus fundamentally unsound

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) dictates that local plans should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development and deliver economic, social and environmental objectives. The NCC M&WLP fails on all three objectives as discussed above. It also directly contravenes the following paragraphs of the NPPF - and is thus fundamentally unsound.

Section 3. Plan-Making. Paragraph 35 calls for local plans to be "examined to assess whether they have been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and whether they are sound". The first section of this objection states how NCC did not follow procedural requirements of the consultation, specifically failing to consider the responses received in the first stage of consultation in preparing the Preferred Options, and violating their own Statement of Community Involvement Policy.

Plans are considered 'sound' if they are: "b) justified - taking into account reasonable alternatives". NCC has failed to take into account recycling or importing the silica as a reasonable alternative. "d) consistent with national policy" - see further below. Section 6. Building a strong, competitive economy. Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Paragraph 83 "b) the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses; c) sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside". The NCC M&WLP has the opposite objective - destroying productive agricultural land and killing off local tourism.

Section 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities. Paragraph 91 "Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which ... c) enable and support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs - for example through provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure....layouts that encourage walking and cycling". The NCC M&WLP has the opposite objective - depriving the community of the green infrastructure for walking and cycling.

Open space and recreation. Paragraph 96 "Access to a network of high quality open space and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities". The NCC M&WLP goes against the communities' need for health and well-being.

Paragraph 98 "Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access... and adding links to existing rights of way including National Trails". AOS E and SIL02 have over 10 miles of public footpaths and bridleways that will be destroyed if the plan goes ahead. Even if the PROWs are moved, nobody would want to walk around a working quarry, or let their children play anywhere near the area.

Paragraph 100 "Local Green Spaces" - Shouldham Warren and Marham Fen most definitely satisfy the criteria of a Local Green Space:

a) in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;
b) demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and c) local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.

The community will be looking to designate this space through local and neighbourhood plans - NCC needs to take heed of the strength of feeling that exists in West Norfolk and beyond at their illconsidered plans. Section 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Paragraph 148 "The planning systems should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate... it should shape places in way that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions... encourage the reuse of existing resources..." - Destroying hundreds of hectares of trees and top soil that are the most effective carbon sinks, whilst having no credible reuse or recycling scheme for glass is unsound based on NPPF.

Section 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Paragraph 170 "a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity and soils ... b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefit from natural capital and ecosystem services, including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland." The whole plan violates this clause entirely.

Paragraph 180 "Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account cumulative effects of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment... in doing so, they should b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and prized for their recreational amenity value for this reason". There is no comparable tranquil recreational amenity of this size in West Norfolk.

Section 17. Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals. Paragraph 204 Planning policies should:

"b) so far as practicable, take account of the contribution that substitute or secondary and recycled materials and minerals waste would make to the supply of materials, before considering extraction of primary materials, whilst aiming to source minerals supplies indigenously". This plans shows abject failure by NCC to provide for any recycling plans and consideration for alternatives. "f) set out criteria or requirements to ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, taking into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality." There is no definition of 'unacceptable adverse impacts' - from the perspective of the local residents and taxpayers - the impacts are unacceptable, especially taking into account the cumulative effects of living next to an active airbase.

"h) ensure that worked land is reclaimed at the earliest opportunity, taking account of aviation safety, and that high quality restoration and aftercare of mineral sites takes place". The NCC M&WLP failed to take out the entirely of SIL 02 despite the strong MOD objection based on aviation safety. NCC certainly has no high quality, or any in fact, restoration plans proposed. Paragraph 205 "When determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy". See above for evidence that there is no benefit to the economy, in fact there is detriment to existing industries that provide local jobs.

Paragraph 207 "Minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by: a) preparing an annual Local Aggregate Assessment, either individually or jointly, to forecast future demand, based on a rolling average of 10 years' sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of all supply options (including marine dredged, secondary and recycled sources)". There is no provision for recycled sources in the plan or in the assessment of 'needs'.

NCC M&WLP plan is unsound and entirely inconsistent with national planning policies.

Furthermore, the M&WLP contravenes a huge number NCC's own policies, including its Vision to 2036, Sustainability Appraisal Report (SA1, SA3, SA4, SA5, SA6, SA8, SA9, SA11 and SA13), Waste Management Strategic Objectives (WSO1, WSO 2, WSO 4, WSO 6, WSO8), Minerals Strategic Objectives (MSO2, MSO3, MSO6, MSO7, MSO8, MSO9, MSO10).


In conclusion, it is abundantly clear that NCC is determined to ram these proposals through, despite the overwhelming objections of the public, general and statutory consultees and furthermore, that NCC views the public consultation as nothing more than an inconvenience rather than an active and productive process. This is evidenced by the sheer lack of resource they have assigned to its successful completion, the minimum effort undertaken in order to comply with the legal requirement and absolutely no analysis as to whether the process has been successful (either now or in the past, and following the debacle of the King's Lynn Incinerator Project that is nothing short of negligent). Yet despite all these factors, and even though NCC even stacks the cards against the public by restricting what it considers a 'valid objection', the public has spoken in unprecedented numbers and their voice has been supported by those of the general and statutory consultees.

This process has given the public nothing more than the opportunity to research national and regional policies on everything ranging from your own Statement of Community Involvement (with which you do not comply), to those policies covering economics, environmental protection and safeguarding, health and wellbeing, local history, road infrastructure, restoration and enrichment, recycling and even the NPPF - policies NCC should be enforcing even before proposal like these come to the public venue.

There is not a single area, where this proposal and the many like it, complies or meets with the requirements already contained within your policies nor does it demonstrate any value to the local community whatsoever and the fact that NCC has forwarded these proposals knowing that, is shameful. NCC are public servants, you have the policies and mandate to protect our communal best interests, when the national requirement is not known (as it is not in this case), when the demand, extraction and final usage of this finite resource is obscured by private interest, what possible justification could NCC have for funding this process at public expense when the outcome is clear Norfolk will be left poorer, less beautiful, less healthy, historically impoverished, and nothing more than a spattering of lonely communities no longer dotted across green space and a patchwork of fields, and wooded areas, but isolated by gaping chasms and toxic ponds shrouded in security fences and abandoned by Sibelco as they simply move their operations to the next area in a process facilitated by NCC.

I join the many voices that object.

Objection to AOS E (Land to the north of Shouldham) and SIL 02 (land at Shouldham and Marham)

I object to AOS E and SIL 02, including Shouldham Warren the overlap between these two sites in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan (M&WLP). I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council (NCC) continues to employ a public consultation process without scrutinising its efficiency and that is clearly not fit for purpose - a fact exacerbated by a steady stream of false or misleading information both directly from NCC, such as "SIL 02 has been designated as unsuitable" (when in fact a third of that "preferred area" has simply been re-classified as AOS E) or via NCC and Borough Councillors who have advised local residents with messages such as: "don't worry about the consultation phase, you want to keep your powder dry for planning permission phase", "no more than 3 people can object from any single address," "weighting is given to those objections from residents living within 250m of the proposed sites" Given the strong criticisms already levelled at NCC regarding this current consultation, the sheer breadth of misinformation now goes beyond the pale of honest mistakes or poor communication and starts to suggest a coordinated effort to dissuade members of the public from participating in this process.

All four "key principles" set out in NCC's adopted Statement of Community Involvement have been violated:

1) Accountability (taking citizens' views into account) - concerns raised in the 460 responses to the first consultation in August 2018 have been ignored. Residents raised concerns about impact on health, wellbeing, environment, biodiversity, their rights to peaceful enjoyment of their properties, no benefit to local communities, failure to improve recycling of glass already in circulation, lack of restoration plans, and failure to conduct an effective and transparent process by NCC. The August 2019 Mineral Plan states that the "responses received have been considered in the production of the second public consultation document, the Preferred Options", however the 'Preferred Options' only reflected the concerns of the MOD and Historical Environment Services. NONE of the concerns raised by residents were taken into account or addressed.

2) Accessibility (consultation is clear and genuinely accessible) - an accessible consultation should not be written in incomprehensible language and should not require 1000s of hours of effort to understand and participate. It should not rely on concerned members of the public informing the wider community or rallying various consultee groups to respond. It should not require the public to defend and ensure existing government policies are complied with. It should not require an MP's involvement to ensure that public concern is registered and addressed.

3) Inclusivity (groups of the community are not excluded) - NCC deemed it reasonable to only send 10 letters to residents within an arbitrary 250m boundary of the site, despite the proposed silica mine being the largest in the country and affecting thousands of people, including disadvantaged and minorities, and the thousands of people who come to the Warren to enjoy the little nature that is left in West Norfolk.

4) Efficiency (ensuring methodology delivers results) - NCC continues to use the same ineffective methodology for consultation: in the 2015 consultation, AOS E received 7 responses; in the 2018 consultation, due to the efforts of CATSS local campaign group, AOS E and SIL02 received 460 responses. Other areas resulted in the same low level response (SIL01 - 8, AOS F - 3, AOS I - 4, AOS J - 6), because NCC continues to use ineffective methods of engagement with the residents of Norfolk.

I will continue to outline the reasons for my objections, however it is clear that trust in the process, NCC and Borough Councils is gone, as NCC only does the bare minimum in order to meet what it perceives as its legal obligations, and there is no interest in ensuring genuine, meaningful public participation, nor any evidence of taking the feedback and public concerns into account.

Economic objections

I object to the proposal as it is detrimental to the local economy and financially unsound. There are no jobs created, the only economic benefit would be to the privately-owned Belgian company, Sibelco. The silica sand is not used in Norfolk, it entirely exported elsewhere, including overseas. Much of the SIL 02 overlap is high grade agricultural farmland, used for growing sugar beets, which does contribute to job creation and income in the local area. It is unsound to be destroying farmland to dig up minerals for export on the eve of Brexit, when the aim of national policies is to ensure food security. Parts of AOS E is a managed wood plantation, again creating jobs and a supporting low carbon biomass industry.

Loss of a large green space used by thousands of people in West Norfolk will have a real impact on human physical and mental health, putting more financial pressure on the already overstretched NHS.

Loss of such a large carbon sink, hundreds of hectares of woodland and topsoil, at a time when the country is already struggling to meet its legally binding carbon reduction commitments means more expensive investments in carbon reductions elsewhere.

This proposal goes completely against the Local Development Plan for West Norfolk (https://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/homepage/257/local_development_plan), which has identified Marham as a growth area, and envisages a place where "people want to be part of the success story that is West Norfolk, drawn her to live, work, invest and visit... to take advantage of quality of life... supporting strong, vibrant, healthy communities... with a access to local services that support the health, social and cultural well-being of local communities... with new development located and designed to be better adapted to climate change and risk of flooding... protecting and enhancing our justifiable famous natural and historic environment and ensuring growth of the borough makes sustainability a central principle of our vision". Nobody wants to live next to a silica mine, and this proposal has already negatively affected the local area economically through dampening the housing market.

Shouldham Warren and Nar Valley Way running along a Nar River SSSI are a major tourism and recreational destination, used by thousands of walkers, cyclists, horse riders and runners - contributing income to local tourism infrastructure and facilities. Pentney Priory Gatehouse, currently a wedding venue, overlooks the overlap are of AOS E and SIL 02 - this is an example of a specific business that would become non-viable if the view they currently experience over open land is turned into a working quarry.

MOD has already objected to the proposal given the risk of birdstrike to the aircraft at RAF Marham, the main operating base for the for the F35 Lightning II, an aircraft that costs £100+ million. The major damage to the singe engine of this aircraft, let alone loss of even one aircraft due to damage from a bird-strike would be financially intolerable and a major blow to the defence of the UK and our wider interests. The other costs of a crash landing of the aircraft to cover emergency services and long-term care and support to the affected people on the ground, are incalculable but would run into the tens if not hundreds of million pounds.

NCC has failed to consider other economically viable alternatives, such as investment in modern glass reuse and recycling as are practiced in mainland Europe. Reuse through glass deposit schemes and recycling would create new jobs and contribute to meeting the country's carbon commitments, preserve and sustain the stocks of silica sand, protect the biodiversity of the countryside and health of the residents of Norfolk.

Environmental objections

I object to the fact that the plan would destroy the local landscape and hundreds of hectares of woodland of Shouldham Warren and farmland of Marham Fen. These areas include designated country wildlife sites and are adjacent to a Nar River SSSI - they are important habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. The government has declared a climate emergency, and stated that the UK will have to plant 1.5 billion trees if it is to meet its target of net zero emissions by 2050 - that's 50 million trees every year, so this plan goes against national policies.

I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. This allocation of this site places NCC in direct contravention of its own Environmental Policy (https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/what-we-do-and-how-we-work/policy-performance-andpartnerships/policies-and-strategies/natural-environment-policies/environmentalpolicy) - especially the following points:
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.
3. Improve our environmental performance by reducing any actual or potential pollution and comply with all legislative, regulatory or other requirements, within the framework of an environmental management system.
4. Help, inspire and enable our residents to reduce, reuse and recycle much more of their waste so that they keep what's left over to a minimum.

Health Objections

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. NCC has done nothing to address concerns about silicosis, which is presently only classified as an 'Industrial Disease'. Silica mine workers experience high-density, shortterm exposure to dust are at risk for acute silicosis, and occupational hazard. Chronic silicosis and other lung conditions, on the other hand, are known to occur with lowerlevel exposures over time and is more likely to be a Public Health threat (https://www.mnmed.org/MMA/media/Minnesota-Medicine-Magazine/CommentaryFeyereisn.pdf, https://www.ewg.org/research/danger-in-the-air, http://www.hazards.org/dust/silica.htm). This industrial categorisation allows companies like Sibelco to dismiss public health concerns. However, there is complete absence of any peer reviewed, independent research on the long-term health effects of lower dosage effects of silica exposure on the general public. It is unacceptable for NCC to locate large, long-term, extraction operations close to inhabited areas and put thousands of people at risk.

Furthermore, the loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health - mental and physical. Shouldham Warren and Marham Fen are Green Spaces for our community and for thousands of visitors who come here to run, cycle, horse ride and walk. There is no other space of this size in West Norfolk. Loss of this public amenity would have a detrimental effect on the physical and mental health of thousands of people. The social and emotional impact of losing our outdoor area and nature should not be underestimated and is unacceptable.

Historical Objections

Due in part to the heritage impact assessment 2/3 of the SIL 02 site has been 'not allocated' in the M&WLP. However, the remaining third, which forms the overlap with AOS E, is located directly South West of Pentney Priory Gatehouse, and has an unacceptable impact on the historical environment and the setting of this heritage asset, given that the flat fen landscape. There are unobstructed views all the way to Pentney Priory Gatehouse from the elevated position of Marham and from the Spring Lane that will presumably be used to get access the site. Any bunting or screening would be obstructive in its own right. The historical impact assessment proposed a 2Km exclusion Zone to the East of Pentney Priory Gatehouse as sufficient not to impinge on that landscape; the assessment cites that any bunding would impose an unacceptable constraint on that view. However, only 1Km is proposed to the South of this historic building; with a similar flat landscape over the Fen towards Spring Lane this is at odds with protecting the view towards or away from the Gatehouse.

There are other historical monuments including the remnants of an Augustinian Priory, which has not been studied with settlements and artefacts undiscovered and lost forever if quarrying was to take place. The centre of AOS E, Shoudham Warren, is a medieval landscape and an area of high archaeological possibility. The area rises above the landscape and is highly likely to be a medieval farmed network. The remnants of an ancient spring on the hill of the Warren with a Rhododendron avenue being an important area for archaeological study. Within the Warren itself, areas used in WW2 are preserved and a rifle butt within close proximity of the entrance; the historic links to our past evident and in need of protection.

Just to the south of Shouldham Warren and on the northeast extremity of Shouldham village, lie the earthworks of Shouldham. There are also buried remains of part of a gravel road that runs along the south side of Abbey farm. This road is potentially Roman; approx 5m wide. The road east of the adjacent field can be seen from the air. Roman pottery has been found in this area and archaeological remains are possible within the vicinity. There is also thought to be bronze age artefacts and the area should be protected for its historical setting and for archaeological study.

A quarry in AOS E and/or the overlap of SIL 02 the Preferred Area would irreversibly change the local landscape and affect the historical character of the area and the many historical monuments and their setting. This is supported by NCC's own Historic Environment Impact Assessment of AOS E and SIL 02.

Objections based on lack of road infrastructure

It is assumed that Sibelco's pipeline idea is no longer applicable, so any removal of spoil, trees, and eventually sand, will have to be by road. The construction phase and the sand transportation will require the movement of thousands of HGVs on the narrow rural and village lanes that are entirely unsuitable for heavy machinery. No proposals have been made about how the road infrastructure will be developed to address this, but it is clear that the villages would be suffer from the noise and pollution from any heavy machinery and additional traffic, and that other Norfolk roads would be detrimentally affected.

Objections based on lack of lack of restoration plans

A further objection relates to the lack of any restoration plans proposed by NCC. This development would blight the area for decades. There is no promise of any benefit to the community in terms of increased access, no biodiversity gains proposed, no landscape enhancements. 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.

Objections based on lack of recycling plans

I object because this plan contravenes national planning policies which demand that recycled materials are taken into account before considering extraction of primary materials. Silica sand is a finite material, and national policies call for their sustainable use and conservation for future generations. NCC has made no attempt within the M&WLP to discuss how improved reuse, including deposit schemes, or improved recycling of glass within Norfolk, nor indeed the rest of the country, would reduce the amount of silica sand (primary material) extracted each year. Improved glass recycling and reuse would ensure the reserves of silica sand are preserved, thereby extending the period of self-sufficiency in glass manufacturing within the UK and comply with national policies on waste management. Without a serious plan to implement glass reuse and recycling the M&WLP is fundamentally flawed.

Sibelco claims to be a leader in recycling in Europe and boasts state-of-the-art recycling technologies, however here in Norfolk show no leadership or business creativity, and just want to keep extract raw materials at the same rate, destroying communities and turning nature into industrial wastelands. It is a wasted opportunity for Sibelco to become a 'neighbour of choice' as they supposedly strive to be (https://www.sibelco.com/wp-content/uploads/code-of-sustainable-conduct.pdf)


Objection based on the fact that the plan inconsistent with national policies and NCC policies, and thus fundamentally unsound

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) dictates that local plans should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development and deliver economic, social and environmental objectives. The NCC M&WLP fails on all three objectives as discussed above. It also directly contravenes the following paragraphs of the NPPF - and is thus fundamentally unsound.

Section 3. Plan-Making. Paragraph 35 calls for local plans to be "examined to assess whether they have been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and whether they are sound". The first section of this objection states how NCC did not follow procedural requirements of the consultation, specifically failing to consider the responses received in the first stage of consultation in preparing the Preferred Options, and violating their own Statement of Community Involvement Policy.

Plans are considered 'sound' if they are: "b) justified - taking into account reasonable alternatives". NCC has failed to take into account recycling or importing the silica as a reasonable alternative.
"d) consistent with national policy" - see further below.
Section 6. Building a strong, competitive economy. Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Paragraph 83 "b) the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses; c) sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside". The NCC M&WLP has the opposite objective - destroying productive agricultural land and killing off local tourism.

Section 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities. Paragraph 91 "Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which ... c) enable and support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identified local health and well-being needs - for example through provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure....layouts that encourage walking and cycling". The NCC M&WLP has the opposite objective - depriving the community of the green infrastructure for walking and cycling.

Open space and recreation. Paragraph 96 "Access to a network of high quality open space and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities". The NCC M&WLP goes against the communities' need for health and wellbeing.

Paragraph 98 "Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access... and adding links to existing rights of way including National Trails". AOS E and SIL02 have over 10 miles of public footpaths and bridleways that will be destroyed if the plan goes ahead. Even if the PROWs are moved, nobody would want to walk around a working quarry, or let their children play anywhere near the area.

Paragraph 100 "Local Green Spaces" - Shouldham Warren and Marham Fen most definitely satisfy the criteria of a Local Green Space:

a) in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;
Page 8

b) demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and c) local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.

The community will be looking to designate this space through local and neighbourhood plans - NCC needs to take heed of the strength of feeling that exists in West Norfolk and beyond at their ill-considered plans.
Section 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Paragraph 148 "The planning systems should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate... it should shape places in way that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions... encourage the reuse of existing resources..." - Destroying hundreds of hectares of trees and top soil that are the most effective carbon sinks, whilst having no credible reuse or recycling scheme for glass is unsound based on NPPF.

Section 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Paragraph 170 "a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity and soils ... b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefit from natural capital and ecosystem services, including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland." The whole plan violates this clause entirely.

Paragraph 180 "Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account cumulative effects of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment... in doing so, they should b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and prized for their recreational amenity value for this reason". There is no comparable tranquil recreational amenity of this size in West Norfolk.

Section 17. Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals. Paragraph 204 Planning policies should:

"b) so far as practicable, take account of the contribution that substitute or secondary and recycled materials and minerals waste would make to the supply of materials, before considering extraction of primary materials, whilst aiming to source minerals supplies indigenously". This plans shows abject failure by NCC to provide for any recycling plans and consideration for alternatives.
"f) set out criteria or requirements to ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, taking into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality." There is no definition of 'unacceptable adverse impacts' - from the perspective of the local residents and taxpayers - the impacts are unacceptable, especially taking into account the cumulative effects of living next to an active airbase.

"h) ensure that worked land is reclaimed at the earliest opportunity, taking account of aviation safety, and that high quality restoration and aftercare of mineral sites takes place". The NCC M&WLP failed to take out the entirely of SIL 02 despite the strong MOD objection based on aviation safety. NCC certainly has no high quality, or any in fact, restoration plans proposed.

Paragraph 205 "When determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy". See above for evidence that there is no benefit to the economy, in fact there is detriment to existing industries that provide local jobs.

Paragraph 207 "Minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by: a) preparing an annual Local Aggregate Assessment, either individually or jointly, to forecast future demand, based on a rolling average of 10 years' sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of all supply options (including marine dredged, secondary and recycled sources)". There is no provision for recycled sources in the plan or in the assessment of 'needs'.
NCC M&WLP plan is unsound and entirely inconsistent with national planning policies.

Furthermore, the M&WLP contravenes a huge number NCC's own policies, including its Vision to 2036, Sustainability Appraisal Report (SA1, SA3, SA4, SA5, SA6, SA8, SA9, SA11 and SA13), Waste Management Strategic Objectives (WSO1, WSO 2, WSO 4, WSO 6, WSO8), Minerals Strategic Objectives (MSO2, MSO3, MSO6, MSO7, MSO8, MSO9, MSO10).

In conclusion, the M&WLP proposed by NCC is ill-conceived, fails to comply with national and local policies, provides no economic, social or environmental benefit, and is fundamentally unsound. NCC has conducted an appalling consultation process that has lost the trust of its constituents. NCC should be reminded that their responsibility is the provision of public services for both current and future generations of residents and taxpayers, safeguarding national interests and the environment - not promoting the harmful short-term business interests of one private overseas company.

This is a letter from South West Norfolk Constituency Labour Party, voicing our objections to quarrying in the Shouldham area, specifically those set out by AOS E and SIL 02.

We object on a number of grounds. The proposal, should it go ahead, will affect the population of South West Norfolk in a number of ways, some of them harmful, some of them arguably wrong-headed.

Health:
Shouldham Warren is used by a large number of people. Local authorities have responsibility under The Health and Social Care Act 2012 to improve public health and reduce health inequality. We all know the pubic health benefits of exercise, many of these arguments have been aired by others and we echo them here: it is an area widely used for walks, bike rides, runs, 'forest bathing' and horse riding. The health benefits of the natural environment itself are less familiar to the general public. It has been shown that access to an environment rich in microorganisms has positive benefits for general health. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5635058/
Costs of treating people in the NHS are spiralling, not least because of the rise of a range of diseases, from diabetes to autism and anxiety to obesity. It has been shown that these diseases are affected in a positive way by a diverse series of microbiota (the microbes that live in the gut). Microbes are key to a healthy microbiome, and access to an environment rich in microorganisms, like well-established woodland, enhances the microbiome by contact with these microorganisms, many of which can be beneficial in ways that science failed until recently to understand. Loss of access to environments rich a diverse microbial content takes away their health-giving properties from a section of the population who are unlikely to be able to replace it with anything similar. Access to public parks is no replacement; environmentally speaking they have much less microbial diversity. It means that wealthier people, landowners and their friends and family, or people who can afford to travel long distances to similar environments, will have health benefits and opportunities that less affluent members of the population will lose. This is to increase, rather than reduce health inequality and is an attack on the health and well-being of a section of our community who are also less rich in the resources, be they time, well-being, education, easy access to sources of reference, or through sheer exhaustion, to enable them to protest about this loss.

Economic issues

According to Sibelco, only one or two full time jobs are likely to be created at the quarry site. This does not seem enough added local value to counter the environmental losses, disruption and pollution it will create.

In a letter of objection, Shouldham Parish Council have cited a wide discrepancy between the figures they have found by examining the publicly available accounts filed by Sibelco, and the figures they claim to have put into the public economy. If NCC enter into an agreement with the company in a state of awareness that their public statements and their private policy are at odds with one another, how can we the public, feel at ease with their assurances on other, more sensitive matters.
The code of conduct for County Councillors asks you to focus on the 'principles of conduct in public life of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership.' Doesn't this oblige our Councillors to look into this discrepancy in relation to Sibelco's account of these figures?

Environment:

Losing Shouldham Warren means loss of species, flora and fauna. Forestry England's report 'Shouldham & Bilney Forest Plan' points out the natural wealth of the area, and to read it is to conclude that it would be utterly self-destructive, in a situation where so many of our species are imperilled, to allow it to go ahead. The government's Clean Growth Strategy recommends not felling, but planting trees.
And in any case, old woodland has developed interactions between ecological communities of organisms that help trees evolve defence mechanisms to ward off pathogens. In other words, they have useful properties that newly planted trees don't have - something like knocking down large and practical areas of housing to replace them with a shanty town. It may develop eventually, but it won't have the infrastructure for life of the thing it replaces.


Climate change:

At this time of climate crisis it is foolhardy to cut trees, an important carbon sink. It's not only trees that are capable of storing CO2 - the soil has that capability too, and a rich soil is a carbon rich soil. Losing the forest, and replacing it with a hole in the ground, depleted both of soil and of trees, is foolhardy at this time. It should be NCC's role to think of the future of the children and grandchildren of their constituency, and in a heating world, wonder if doing something that will make an active contribution to air pollution, have deleterious effects likely to increase asthma and breathing difficulties (see the Forest Plan) and an adverse effect on water systems (Forest Plan) is worth the gain. And this is not to mention the fact that the very company they are planning to allow to develop the site is the largest trader in fracking sand - just the kind of sand that will be extracted here. Fracking produces methane, 84 times more potent than CO2. Even supposing that Sibelco did not plan to use the sand for fracking (which seems unlikely given the discrepancy between the projected amount we need for high quality glass and the amount they plan to extract) is this the company we should, locally and nationally, in effect be granting access to these resources?

Other:

This is not to mention the problems with RAF Marham, with bird strikes, with Sibelco's record on site restoration. We object, in the strongest possible terms, to this proposal.

I am emailing to object to the plans submitted regarding a quarry being dug at Shouldham Warren.

It's a beautiful place full of wildlife that is enjoyed all year round by young and old, dog walkers, cyclists, horse riders and many others.

In a time when exercise and fresh air for children seems to be at an all time low, it is the perfect place for us as a family to make sure our children are enjoying time outside with nature.

Shame on you NCC!!!

RE: Objection to Quarrying in AOS E, SILO 02 in its entirety and the overlap with SIL 02 at Shouldham and Marham, Norfolk.

I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, and the entire area of 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 record my objection based on the following grounds:

Protect Environment
I object to protect the environment of AOS E and SIL 02.
I live with my family in Shouldham Warren. If these monstrous plans go ahead and NCC decide to destroy Shouldham Warren, we will be directly affected. We live and breathe this precious woodland environment and will do anything to protect it. I object to the presence of any Silica Sand Quarry. It will ruin the surrounding landscape between Shouldham Warren and Marham Fen, including habitats for endangered birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 known species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars, woodlarks, cuckoos, adders, slow worms, barn owls and very likely badgers too. Evidence which has been recorded by the Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service, The British Trust for Ornithology (Bird Atlas 2007-11) and Forestry England.

Of note birds-wise, the key ones listed in Shouldham Warren area (by the Norfolk Biodiversity and British Trust of Ornithology) are the Nightjar and Woodlark. These are BD1-Birds Directive Annex 1, stating that "...Birds which are the subject of special conservation measures concerning their habitats in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution. As appropriate, 'Special Protection Areas' to be established to assist conservation measures ..." These birds are Breckland specialities and as such, this area will be important for them. Pg.10 in Forestry England's Shouldham and Bilney Forest Plan 2016 - 2026 says, 'Nightjars are ground nesting birds and Shouldham and Bilney Woods provide habitat between the population in Thetford Forest and North Norfolk. They are recording nesting in the transient open space." Open spaces, that need to be protected.

We hear Nightjars every summer in The Warren and have evidence that they are breeding. It's also worth noting that the records reflect more than just the odd bird, but a number of individuals. There are also a number of species (plants and birds) that are listed under the Bern Convention and as such it is illegal to knowingly kill them, as it is under the UK Wildlife Acts - this is an International convention. In general there are also records of a range of threatened farmland bird species, all of which are the focus of dedicated conservation measures and actions funded by the UK Government, via English Nature. Finally, all the bats in the area, from recent surveys, shows the importance of the area and bats have a great deal of legislation that protects them. Although this is more focused on roosts, by the many records noted in the 'Area of Search', I suspect many roosts are nearby.

We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and Climate Change. 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 and user groups.

With NCC's headquarters based in the east of Norfolk, you might not be aware that according to recent Government data, West Norfolk is responsible for more than a quarter of the County's CO2 emissions. The statistics from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which are estimates of carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 to 2017, show that the Borough consistently had higher emissions of greenhouse gas than the other Local Authorities in Norfolk. Surely another critical reason to protect woodland areas, like Shouldham Warren more than ever and to not increase already over burdened roads with more and more quarry lorries.

Also stated in Forestry England's Shouldham and Bilney Forest Plan 2016 - 2026 pg 11. "District Council planning guidance is that large areas of plantations should be conserved and managed as striking landscape features and wildlife areas, and to seek to conserve, enhance and link patches of wet woodland."
Shouldham Warren is a sanctuary to rich and rare species that Norfolk County Council should be leading the way in protecting. Not planning to dig up and destroy forever. The wildlife already present is just the beginning. It should be your duty to protect them. The Norfolk Wildlife Trust are keen to explore designating the Warren as an Area of Special Interest. Norfolk County Council should be taking the lead in making this happen.

A sobering recent report by a group of more than 70 conservation charities, research institutions and government bodies, called the 'State of Nature' 2019 highlights a sharp decline in wildlife, plants and fungi caused by a variety of factors that range from climate change to urbanisation. Further reason to protect the biodiversity living in AOS E and SIL 02.

Rosie Hails, Nature and Science Director at the National Trust said: 'We are now at a crossroads when we need to pull together with actions rather than words to stop and reverse the decline of those species at risk as well as protecting and creating new habitats in which they can thrive.'

In Norfolk County Council's, 'Together for Norfolk' research publication titled, 'AN AMBITIOUS PLAN FOR OUR COUNTY 2019-2025'. You state that, "here at Norfolk County Council, we have a clear ambition: for our County to be a place where we put people first, where everyone works together to create a better place to live. A place of opportunity: where we can fulfil our potential and lead productive, healthy and independent lives. A place where we all have the chance to contribute to and benefit from economic growth and regeneration, as well as protecting our unique environment."

Isn't it time you deliver on your ambitious plans? Why not start with Protecting the unique environment of Shouldham Warren by removing AOS E and SIL 02 from the Norfolk Waste and Minerals Plan.

Protect Wellbeing
I to object to protect the wellbeing that just 'being' in Shouldham Warren brings to 1,000's of users as an incredibly valuable recreational space.

You only have to visit https://www.facebook.com/NorfolkCATSS and look at all the comments and pictures from over a thousand people who LOVE the Warren. From horse riders, walkers, families, mountain bikers, runners, dog walkers, photographers, painters...All engage, enjoy and feel connected with nature. To breathe in the fresh air and immerse themselves in the healing energy a woodland provides.

Shouldham Warren makes people feel safe to explore freely.

The British Horse Society, stated that between Nov 2010 - Mar 2019 there have been 3737 reported road incidents - the reality is that only 10% of incidents are reported to BHS. In that time 315 horses have died and 43 humans. This is why recreational spaces like Shouldham Warren are so important to preserve public access too.

Dry or wet worked (any) quarry in Shouldham Warren will have a devastating impact on the mental health of both villages' residents and for the other communities who use the Warren as their natural gym. Evidence shows natural outdoor spaces help with mental and physical health and social interactions. Shouldham Warren and Marham Fen both are used extensively by tourists and locals for experiencing the great outdoors which is backed up by the research of NHS Forest and the Natural England Monitor of 4 Engagement With The Natural Environment.


Protect our villages
I object to protect our surrounding villages from the detrimental impact a quarry will bring to communities.

Referencing NCC's quote in your 'Together for Norfolk' publication you state that '...our County to be a place where we put people first, where everyone works together to create a better place to live.' Living right next to a quarry is hardly creating a better place for people to live. Obviously house prices will be affected and not in a positive sense, in fact, they are already being reduced just from the threat of a quarry. A quarry in the Warren will kill the village (Shouldam) as young families will not want to move here and existing residents will want to leave. Destroying the heart of a desirable, sought after village. Would you move to live next to a quarry for the next 20-30 years and why would you want to stay?

What about the HGV and heavy plant movements? Surely they can't come through our village? Maybe not, but how close they get will depend on the landowners nearby granting permission to run a cross-country road to the quarry from the A134 across their land for a pretty-penny. So the peacefulness of my village would be ruined by the continuous HGV traffic close to the village - noise, pollution, dust will replace the clean air and tranquillity that is here now. Another killer blow to the village. Not to mention the additional pressure of HGV's on the current road system that is already crippling surrounding villages on the trunk roads that lead to and from Kings Lynn, Downham Market /Ely and on to Norwich and wider afield.
Shouldham Warren wraps around neighbouring villages A haven for people and wildlife alike. Even thinking about being there reduces the stresses of the day. Knowing that an outdoor space as beautiful as that is available to local people at the drop of a hat any time - is a gift that cannot be replaced. Taking this away changes village life forever. More stress, poor health, a dying community - that's why I wish to object to protect our village life.

Protect our natural resources
I object to protect the finite natural mineral resource - Silica Sand.

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.

Sand is a finite resource and to say there is a 'need' for sand is inconsiderate short term thinking. What will happen when the sand in this part of the world when it has been extracted in 20-30 years' time? Surely we should be protecting Norfolk's precious resources with our lives! When will we come to accept that what is needed is a circular economy where nothing goes to waste, and everything is recycled or reused?

Norfolk County Council only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation and we bury more glass than we recycle. Isn't it time to say enough is enough. To say no, to further extraction of resources and to start mining landfills for materials and to have a county-(country-and world-) wide extensive glass collection and recycling mechanism.
NCC's preferred mining privately owned Belgium company, says there is a need for Silica Sand, but then they're the ones who will profit from the destruction of our countryside and the exploitation of our finite mineral wealth. What I want to know is:

* Is there any independent oversight of how much sand is actually being excavated, who it goes to and what it is used for? Is this regulated / audited - if so by who?
* Will any of that sand, our valuable resource, be exported or used for FRACKING?
* Will any of our sand be held in stockpile to create artificial scarcity and drive demand as is practice in both the oil and gas and mineral, most famously diamond, extraction industries?
* In other words, is our countryside and precious woodlands being exploited not for actual demand but to ensure Sibelco's continued profitability?

And, if you think overseas interest in our resources stops there, think again. Sibelco then supply 'Norfolk' silica sand to glass manufacturers owned by Japanese, French, Spanish, Irish and American companies. Are their profits principally enjoyed here in the UK or by private overseas shareholders?

I question, why instead of digging up more of our precious and finite mineral resources aren't Norfolk County Council driving recycling up the political agenda. Especially, in a County where such a high percentage of our glass currently goes to landfill...

Protect our heritage
I object to protect the heritage of Shouldham and Marham Fen.

As reported in Oct 2017 by the Planning Inspectorate in the Examination of the Norfolk Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD: Single Issue Silica Sand Review. He comments that 'whilst the Historic Landscape Characterisation study is high-level, it is sufficient to establish that an area of some 20 hectares has the potential to come forward within the AoS boundary without resulting in unacceptable harm to the historic landscape.' Surely this is like finding a needle in a haystack, once all the necessary exclusion areas around protect wildlife and ancient trees is researched, public right of ways are protected, safeguarding zones around private property enforced, aquifers protected and all the ancient settlements left untouched.The complexity of implementing any quarry in AOS E, under these terms, must surely become an impossible task. Why not put UK taxpayers money to better use and protect this area of search, and look elsewhere for Silica Sand. If this is a 'resource of national importance' - who says that it is?

Norfolk County Council should be safeguarding the heritage of Shouldham Warren and around Marham Fen. This is 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, and there were Iron Age smelting pits at East Winch. In the Roman era Shouldham appears to have been a centre of some importance. Later, Anglo-Danish nobles held land in the area and there is evidence for habitation in the Early and Late Saxon periods, with well-established agricultural settlements by the time of Domesday (1086).

The Historic Environment Impact Assessment of AOS E and SIL 02 April 2019 with focus on Pentney Priory Gatehouse, suggested that a large area of SIL02 should be withdrawn from the plan as it was incompatible with the historic setting and context of this scheduled monument. What is not covered in this impact statement is the buried remains of part of this Augustinian Priory; there is nothing visible above ground but is revealed by crop marks, covering approximately 13.5 hectare area to the South towards the river Nar, and to the East and West. Surely this area should be designated as an area of historical importance? The finds could well stretch the length of the area of the former SIL02, now subsumed as part of AOS E, as the river Nar was diverted in the monastic period. Settlements and artefacts undiscovered would be lost forever if any quarrying was to take place. Given the significance and proximity to the six sites, three either side of the Nar, surely a very detailed historic analysis and archaeological study should be paramount and Norfolk County Council should exclude this area and remove it from their plan.

A quarry in AOS E and/or the overlap of SIL 02 the Preferred Area would irreversibly change the local landscape and affect the historical character of the area and the many historical monuments and their setting. This is supported by NCC's own Historic Environment Impact Assessment of AOS E and SIL 02.

Protect our defence personnel
I object to protect our defence personnel directly affected by the increased risk of bird-strikes from an open wet quarry.

So, what about the bird-strike risk to the aircraft at RAF Marham and the financial penalty that would incur the UK tax payer?

It is a fact that birds are a problem at any airport. However, RAF Marham isn't just 'any' airport; it is the Main Operating Base (MOB) for the F35 Lightning II, an aircraft that costs an eye-watering £100+ per basic aircraft. The loss of an aircraft due to the loss of an engine or major airframe damage from a bird-strike would be financially intolerable and a major blow to the defence of the UK and our wider interests. The other costs of a crash landing of the aircraft to cover emergency services and long term care and support to the affected people on the ground, are incalculable but would run into the tens if not hundreds of million pounds.

It would be argued that there is a set of lakes very close to RAF Coningsby and that is tolerated but, it should be noted that these quarries had been worked for many years previously and that this practise of allowing large man-made lakes near an airfield is no longer tolerated - a precautionary principle of risk applies.

It should also be noted that the Typhoon at Coningsby has 2 engines as opposed to the ONE engine that the F35 has, which gives it a better chance to be able to land if one engine is damaged. This is not a luxury the F35 has and, since it isn't a glider, it will not be guided away from the school or the houses before it crashes due to the loss of its ONE and only engine. In other words you cannot compare the 2 places as like for like and overall, on finance alone, the extra risk due to the construction of a water filled quarry so close to RAF Marham is unacceptable to the tax-payer. MOD (DIO) have rightly objected to any quarry that will be wet worked or wet restored in SIL 02, AOS E and AOS J because of this increased risk of bird-strike it would bring. In fact, a recent report of a US Marine 5 Corps F35 hitting a bird during the take-off roll caused the aircraft take-off to be aborted and the damage caused amounted to more than $2,000,000 to repair. It 5 F35 bird-strike report 3 appears obvious to everyone except NCC and Sibelco that quarrying in this area of the Safeguarding Zone around RAF Marham is not acceptable.

And it's not just accidents we need worry about - the seasonal movements of large flocks of water birds could mean that RAF MARHAM is actually unable to safely operate aircraft to counter threats to UK security at certain times of the year. Imagine, not being able to secure our own borders because a European company has been granted permission to mine in the UK.

Finally, let's not forget that our Armed Forces already take huge risks for us when we deploy them. Exposing them to entirely avoidable risks at home, merely for private profit, seems reprehensible.


Protect health
I object to protect the health of my family and surrounding local community from the exposure to Silica Sand Dust.

What reassurance can the NCC give my family - myself, my husband [redacted text - personal data] and our two young children will not be exposed to Silica Dust if a quarry is granted permission?

We all know there are health risks associated with silica sand and dust associated with it; health risks created by mining, quarrying, construction and demolition. Indeed, silicosis is the oldest known environmental lung disease and is caused by inhaling tiny particles of silica that are so fine that they can travel long distances in even a light breeze - which is hardly reassuring in a famously windy county.

The symptoms of silicosis can appear anything from a few weeks to many years after exposure and typically worsen over time. Now well researched, the risks within Industry where employees can be exposed to acute levels of silica are well known and legislation exists to protect workers. What isn't known is the impact of chronic exposure particularly amongst vulnerable sections of the community such as young children whose lungs are still developing and the infirm who may already have compromised respiratory systems.

The industry it appears (after hours of research) has a very poor track record of self-regulation or placing public health before profit - one only need look at the tobacco industry and years of denying and even suppressing the health risks of smoking, of the petrochemical industry and the use of lead, of the building industry and asbestos (including Eurogrit BV, a company owned by Sibelco) and big agri-industry and DDT to see a clear pattern of 'profit first' forming.

Despite Sibelco's (NCC's preferred mining company) seemingly baseless assurances of safety we must remember that a lack of research-based evidence is not the same as a lack of risk. Contrary to Mike Hurley's (Sibelco's representative) assertion the Silica dust doesn't travel far, studies from the USA and Australia suggest particulates of PM2.5 (the ones you can breathe deep into the lungs) reach many miles beyond the quarry and there is specific research being conducted outside the UK, examining the impact of chronic exposure to silica dust in communities neighbouring mines and quarries.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has stated there is an unacceptable risk to aircraft with wet working in the area of AOS E; therefore, a dry worked quarry would be Sibelco and NCC's plan for Shouldham Warren which would destroy this peaceful recreational area. The recommendation of the NCC Development and Infrastructure Committee (minutes of 17 July 19) stated with reference to AOS E, "a smaller area that is elevated (not wet) could come forward in this plan and not cause significant objections". Shouldham Warren is elevated and is approx 21m above sea level. That being the case I am very concerned about health implications arising from dry worked quarrying within Shouldham Warren.

Might I also remind you that, The Health and Social Care Act 2012 delegated duties to Local Authorities to improve public health and reduce health inequalities. Section 12, of the 2012 Act 4 introduced a new duty for all upper-tier and unitary Local Authorities in England to take appropriate steps to improve the health of the people who live in their areas. There is a range of legislation that protects biodiversity and urban green spaces by regulating planning, contamination and conservation, including the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Planning Act 2008. The Natural Environment White Paper addresses the importance of accessible green space and links to human health. The Health and Wellbeing Board has named prevention of ill health one of its top priorities and several studies have shown that £1 spent on enabling access to green spaces gives a return of £6 or more in benefits.

Our local residents, old or young, benefit from the outdoor lifestyle afforded by Marham Fen and Shouldham Warren with regular walks enhancing our heart health, lowering blood pressure, improving weight control, while keeping joints and muscles strong and improving mood and mental wellbeing and improving our health.

Protect our children's future
I object to protect the area's future of AOS E and SIL 02 for many generations to come.

On 20th September 2019, millions of children all over the world took part in the largest global climate change protest because they think that adults, politicians and big companies aren't doing enough to tackle climate change, and they're right, we're not doing enough.

So, Norfolk County Council - are you listening? As our 7yr old son said to me 'I hope they listen, that would be nice, as I really don't want a nasty, horrible quarry here in the beautiful Warren.'

At a time when 1 in 5 children leaving primary school in West Norfolk are obese, the importance of doing all that we can as a society to encourage a healthier lifestyle cannot be underestimated. The local primary school - St. Martin of Shouldham, regularly visits the Warren for educational purposes where the children learn through Forest School all about the wonders of the natural world.

Today's young people will be the stewards of our planet in the years to come, and the future of all life depends on them gaining the knowledge, skills and passion for nature necessary to transform humanity's relationship with the natural world and build a more sustainable future. But let's look at future regeneration. What reputation does NCC's preferred mining company have with regeneration? Bawsey Lake spring to mind and the tragic drownings? You only have to do a quick Google search to see the negative press following the aftermath of a quarry owned by Sibelco.

Even if we ignore the sorry state of Bawsey here in Norfolk, we need only look at Moneystone Quarry in Staffordshire to see another example of Sibelco's restoration gone wrong or how in Heerlen in the Netherlands, Sibelco extended their licence from the original closure and restoration date of 2000, to 2020 and now out to 2033. We can even look as far as the other side of the world in Australia, where Sibelco extracted all the mineral wealth from a site and rather than completing the restoration they promised, they simply sold the site to another developer.

Sibelco give us no reason to place our confidence and trust in them. Sibelco does nothing to make us believe they will safeguard our health, or the health of our children.

If we continue to take more from our planet than we put back then we risk its very survival. But this could also be an epoch of opportunity. We understand what is happening and how we can change the way we live to shape a better future for our planet, where human beings can thrive alongside nature. By making the right choices now we can nurture our planet's special qualities and protect the Earth for many generations to come.

''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 SIL02 and remove both areas from the Mineral & Waste Local Plan.

Please record this as my objection.

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.
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 £1 00M 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 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

I am writing particularly with regard to the AOS-E as it affects Shouldham Warren.

The Shouldham Warren area is extremely well used for recreation both because it has a number of public rights of way crossing it and because of the Forestry Commission's policy of open access for the public. This attracts individuals and families from around the area to healthy outdoor exercise, and enjoying the natural surroundings. Its value to public health has not been strongly enough emphasised.

In the past year for instance the Ramblers' King's Lynn Group has organised 9 rambles of different lengths based on Shouldham or Shouldham Warren. It is because of the number of rights of way plus the forest rides, that the Group can lay on so many walks without repeating the previous one.

Usually once a year the Norfolk Orienteering Club organises an event at Shouldham Warren when 100 plus runners will attend. The requirements of a good orienteering location is a sufficiently large area, where runners can go in any direction, short distance visibility, changes in levels. These are all met at Shouldham Warren.

We feel that the public benefit of leaving Shouldham Warren as it is, only changing as various blocks of trees are harvested and replanted, has not been highlighted enough in the circulated Council documents.
If quarrying is allowed in only at first in a small area, in time there will inevitably be pressure to expand the area quarried. We have seen this as the Leziate quarrying has gradually expanded and is happening currently with the Grandcourt quarry area.
No quarrying should be allowed around Shouldham Warren.

Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review: Preferred Options Consultation AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham
The Open Spaces Society (formerly the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society) is Britain's oldest national conservation body, founded in 1865. The society works to protect and create common land, village greens, open spaces and public paths, in town and country, in England and Wales.
I write on behalf of the Open Spaces Society to object to the inclusion of the area called "AOS E", in the Preferred Options document. I understand that this area includes Shouldham Warren and overlaps with the area formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. It is a matter of concern that the Norfolk County Council has announced the removal of SIL 02 when in actual fact a good third of it is now included in "AOS E".
The area of "AOS E" is located on the important area of transition in the county between the Fens and the Brecks, and includes features of significant amenity value to the wider public, including Shouldham Warren and areas of undeveloped agricultural land of high landscape value, and is located adjacent to a large area of fen edge, and within a historic environment which contains numerous high value heritage assets from multiple time periods starting in early prehistory.
Crucially, this area is able to viewed and enjoyed by the public to a high extent, through a considerable number of public rights-of-way and highways. The public rights of way, as well as Shouldham Warren, are much enjoyed by pedestrians and riders, and are generally historic. The effect upon public rights of way would be devastating, necessitating their diversion or closure over undoubtedly considerable periods of time, and it is questionable how practicable it would be to restore them, subsequent to extraction works, to anything like their original character. The change to the historic landscape of the area, following extraction, would be devastating. Shouldham Warren is a long established feature on the map if Norfolk, now long characterised and highly enjoyed as a large and peaceful woodland plantation. There would be a negative impact upon habitats for birds, animals, and insects, too. The Warren is, I understand, a home to some 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks.
Extraction operations in any part of this "AOS E" would have a severe and permanent negative impact upon the public's enjoyment of this beautiful and important part of the Norfolk countryside. This would have a negative impact on the public's recreation and social well-being.

We object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or wider public from this proposal. A number of local communities would bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process, and a very popular public amenity - enjoyed by a much larger section of the population - would be permanently, severely harmed, with the only beneficiaries essentially being private interests. We urge the Norfolk County Council to put the wider public interest before private profit, and remove "AOS E" completely from the Preferred Options list.

Objection to NCC
To: Caroline Jeffery, Principal Planner (Minerals and Waste Policy) Norfolk County Council Objection to Quarrying in AOS E at Shouldham and Marham, Norfolk 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 and valuable educational space for children. 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.


Comments
Yes to extending Crimplesham quarry, I am based in West Dereham and have no objections to Crimplesham being extended. I know we need to extract from the ground to keep supplies but destroying Shouldham Warren is not acceptable. This is a place of natural beauty where many different wildlife live and breed, Aswell as the many different plants. AS ABOVE This woodland is used daily for many outdoor activities by the people, most of which will be objecting too, but some do not have the facilities to object on here. AS ABOVE, GLASS IS BARELY RECYCLED EVEN THOUGH WE ARE EXPECTED TO RECYCLE IT INSTEAD YOU LOT SEND IT TO LANDFILL TO MAKE MORE INSTEAD!! AND I SUPPOSE YOU PROBABLY WANT TO PUT UP A FEW 5G TOWERS AROUND THERE TOO ONCE THE TREES ARE GONE TO KILL US ALL OFF SOONER. You will start a MAJOR PROTEST if this so called PLAN goes ahead and we will NOT be backing down.

I am disgusted that this is even being thought about for no other reason but money and greed!

The world is struggling as it is to survive and people want to tear down a local woodland that is used in so many ways!
I have been visiting Shouldham for the past 25 years. I walk my dogs there and sometimes bring my horse.

I have seen so much wildlife in my time of wandering the forest, from, deer's to kingfishers and adders, let alone the plants and trees that thrive there and the clear river at the bottom with tiny fish!

We need to save this from being destroyed, we need to save what we have!
Soon the world will be nothing but an ugly mess with us all struggling to survive, then we will wish we had done more when we had the chance!

Please lets not destroy this beautiful woodland!

An Objection To Quarrying In The Areas of AOS E and SIL 02 On Health Grounds Dear Norfolk County Council,
Please enter this letter as my health objection to quarrying taking place in the areas of Area of Search (AOS) E and SIL 02 in the Preferred Consultation of the Mineral and Waste Local Plan (M&WLP) Review.
NCC's Sustainability Appraisal Report has as its Sustainability Aim (SA) 9, "To contribute to improved health and amenity of local communities in Norfolk". Furthermore, the comments NCC ascribes to define this aim are, "This policy requires development to not have an unacceptable impact on local amenity, health, Public Open Space, PROW and outdoor recreation facilities. It also states that, where appropriate, enhancement of the Public Rights of Way Network and the creation of recreation opportunities will be sought".
To remove open spaces and areas of forest with easy access to nature that are used by thousands of people to walk and relax in as well as to enjoy more physical outdoor pursuits such as cycling, running and horse-riding is totally the opposite to the stated Sustainability Aim of NCC. To allow quarrying to take the area will damage the health of the local and wider population. It is a proven fact that outdoor exercise and walking in wooded areas reduces the stress and anxiety levels of the individuals taking part. Such an amenity, if lost to quarrying will result in further physical and mental ailments to the local population. Inactivity is the 4th leading factor in global mortality accounting for 6% of deaths.
NCC have stated what their aim is and they now need to prove they mean it by removing AOS E and SIL 02 from the M&WLP.
In summary, I object on health grounds to quarrying in SIL 02 and AOS E for the following reason:
● NCC are not fulfilling their own Sustainability Aim 9 by removing open spaces and access to nature in AOS E and SIL 02. By not following through on their aim will cause an increase in physical and mental problems for the residents of the surrounding villages who use these areas. That is unacceptable and AOS E and SIL 02 should be removed from the M&WLP.

A Historical Objection To Quarrying In The Areas of AOS E and SIL 02

Please enter this letter as my historical objection to quarrying taking place in the areas of Area of Search (AOS) E and SIL 02 in the Preferred Consultation of the Mineral and Waste Local Plan (M&WLP) Review.

The Historic Environment Impact Assessment (HIEA) document states on page 3, "The prominent and elevated position of the gatehouse [Pentney Priory Gatehouse] means that it very difficult to mitigate the relatively severe setting impacts that extraction within SIL 02 and the north-eastern parts of AOS E would have on the significance of the designated heritage assets at Pentney Abbey." Note that it says within SIL 02 and not part of SIL 02. Therefore, why does the report go on to recommend the removal of the northeastern portion of SIL 02 out to 2 km distance to the east of the gatehouse, but to the south of the gatehouse it leaves the southern portion of SIL 02 after 1km distance from the gatehouse (see the map on page 28 of the report)? The view from Pentney Abbey Gatehouse to and from Spring Lane to the south is plain to see as it is for the view to the east-southeast of the gatehouse. You will know that 'The contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to access or experience that setting.' (Historic England 2015); therefore, the recommendation concerning the view to the south is unsound. It should be reviewed and the southern portion of SIL 02 also removed for the same reasons as the northern and eastern area is recommended for removal.

The report is only concerned about heritage assets, i.e. buildings, monuments, structures, sites, places, areas or landscapes of historic and/or archaeological significance which are legally protected. The report does not mention the very real potential archaeological history in SIL 02 and AOS E. Both areas have had significant archaeological finds in the past and there is evidence of settlements from as early the Bronze Age. Shouldham Warren has the remnants of an ancient spring on its hill with a rhododendron avenue an important area for archaeological study. More recently the Warren was used for training soldiers in WW2 and the areas are preserved within the wood. Close by there have been finds of Roman pottery also suggesting a Roman settlement here including a potential Roman road. These would all be lost if quarrying were to occur in AOS E or SIL 02. AOS E and SIL 02 should be removed from the M&WLP immediately.

In summary, I object on historical grounds to quarrying in SIL 02 and AOS E for the following reasons:
● The historical setting of Pentney Priory Gatehouse is underplayed looking to the south towards Spring Lane. It is clearly viewed from there and is not afforded the same recommendation in the HIEA as the setting to the east-southeast. That is unsound and it should be changed to reflect the same recommendation to remove the area of SIL 02 to the south.
● The areas of SIL 02, AOS E and their surrounds are rich in evidence of the further potential of archaeological remnants that should be protected. To allow quarrying in these areas would destroy those artefacts. Quarrying is not performed by hand as it is at an archaeological dig site, so any claims by a mineral operator that they could spot something of archaeological importance and stop quarrying that area is an unrealistic claim of mitigation.

An Environmental Objection To Quarrying In The Areas of AOS E and SIL 02 Please enter this letter as my environmental objection to quarrying taking place in the areas of Area of Search (AOS) E and SIL 02 in the Preferred Consultation of the Mineral and Waste Local Plan (M&WLP) Review.
I object to the destruction of our landscape to allow for quarrying silica sand in Norfolk against UK Gov guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the stated policies of the UK Gov in their documents 'The 25 Year Plan' and 'The Clean Growth Strategy'.
The NPPF requires that authorities should look to recycle before they quarry for raw materials. The NCC M&WLP does not adhere to this. It ignores planning for more efficient clear glass recycling through advanced modern technology that is available now; instead, it only tries to accommodate a profit-making company with the monopoly to quarry silica sand in Norfolk. This despite the fact that the company in question, Sibelco, are a major advanced glass recycling company in mainland Europe and their own company literature advocates for glass recycling as a win-win situation. At a time when governments worldwide and our own Government have committed to reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses the country produces, missing the chance to reduce the amounts of raw materials required to make glass and, therefore, reduce the amount of energy required and the amount of greenhouse gas produced in the process is an environmental faux-pas and renders the M&WLP flawed.
To allow any wooded area to be considered for removal in order to quarry for minerals, as is the case with AOS E, is opposed to the UK Gov policy to maintain forests and to plant more trees to aid our environment. In addition, the wooded areas within AOS E, especially Shouldham Warren, are habitats to many species of flora and fauna including many that are on protected or endangered lists. It is known the Nightjars nest in Shouldham Warren but they are not afforded the same 400m protection buffer around their area that is given to them in The Brecks, as detailed in M&WLP Policy MW5 on page 38. A full, independent, environmental study should be conducted into all of the species, especially Nightjars, in Shouldham Warren before it is included in the M&WLP for submission to the Inspector and the SoS.
Both AOS E and SIL 02 stand on primary and secondary aquifers that supply the drinking water for thousands of residents in West Norfolk. Any quarrying in these areas risks contamination of the aquifer and the drinking water and the chalk river to the north of the area, the river Nar.
I object to the plan including prime agricultural land to be lost to quarrying. Again the UK Gov policy is to increase and improve the quality of our agricultural land to allow more self-sufficiency in food production. NCC's M&WLP does not adhere to this by allowing our prime agricultural land to be included in any area proposed to be quarried.
In summary, I object on environmental grounds to quarrying in SIL 02 and AOS E for the following reasons:
● The plan does not take into consideration the current UK Gov policies on recycling glass before quarrying for more minerals; the protection of wooded areas; and the enhancement of our agricultural land.
● The inclusion of biodiverse habitats that should be protected and not destroyed.
● The potential to pollute our primary source of fresh drinking water.

To whom this may concern , I object to AOS E,including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL O2,in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan,I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing this removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now still included in AOS E.
As a resident and member of the community,I echo the concerns held by the MOD when they objected to these proposals,
I object to the negative impact on the local villagers and visitors health these quarries will have due to removal of Silica,our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function( COPD) and the silica particles will exacerabate these conditions. Loss of natural space has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. I myself suffer from COPD.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if a quarry 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.
Lastly I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to our 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.
Please record these as my objections.

I object to SIL02, the overlap AOSE, AOSE as a whole and AOS J.


If silica sand is a finite resource, what are you doing to protect its use for future generations? What will you do when it runs out? Will you dig glass out from landfill to recycle? Of course without some silica sand they, future generations will be unable to recycle glass efficiently. Why not recycle now and save Norfolk taxpayers, their home; the rural beauty of the area; their time, effort and cost of producing the minerals part of your plan and focus instead on the waste. Cherry-picking parts of NPPF to suit your aim to extract minerals is disregarding other parts of NPPF, especially Sect 17, para 204.b.

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.
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,