AOS E - land to the north of Shouldham

Objection to NCC
To: Caroline Jeffery, Principal Planner (Minerals and Waste Policy) Norfolk County Council Objection to Quarrying in AOS E and the overlap with SIL 02 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, valuable educational space for children and a recreational area well used by so many people. The lack of an improved glass recycling plan to increase the amount of glass cullet available to UK glass manufacturers makes further quarrying for silica sand at the current rate morally wrong. Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate the woodlands and agricultural farmland in AOS E and remove AOS E from the Mineral & Waste Local Plan. I also object to quarrying in SIL 02. It is false of Norfolk County Council to say SIL02 has not been allocated whilst retaining 1/3 of the area in Area Of Search, AOS E. It has known mineral deposits, there is a willing landowner, that defines a preferred area. MOD (DIO) objected to the WHOLE of SIL02, I demand that NCC removes this overlap area from their M&WLP.

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

Objection to NCC
To: Caroline Jeffery, Principal Planner (Minerals and Waste Policy) Norfolk County Council Objection to Quarrying in AOS E and the overlap with SIL 02 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, valuable educational space for children and a recreational area well used by so many people. The lack of an improved glass recycling plan to increase the amount of glass cullet available to UK glass manufacturers makes further quarrying for silica sand at the current rate morally wrong. Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate the woodlands and agricultural farmland in AOS E and remove AOS E from the Mineral & Waste Local Plan. I also object to quarrying in SIL 02. It is false of Norfolk County Council to say SIL02 has not been allocated whilst retaining 1/3 of the area in Area Of Search, AOS E. It has known mineral deposits, there is a willing landowner, that defines a preferred area. MOD (DIO) objected to the WHOLE of SIL02, I demand that NCC removes this overlap area from their M&WLP.

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


Comments
At this time of increasing concern for the environment, when we are beginning to wake up to the disasters which are potentially lying in wait for humanity and the world in general, it is crucial to retain important natural areas.

Objection to NCC
To: Caroline Jeffery, Principal Planner (Minerals and Waste Policy) Norfolk County Council Objection to Quarrying in AOS E and the overlap with SIL 02 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, valuable educational space for children and a recreational area well used by so many people. The lack of an improved glass recycling plan to increase the amount of glass cullet available to UK glass manufacturers makes further quarrying for silica sand at the current rate morally wrong. Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate the woodlands and agricultural farmland in AOS E and remove AOS E from the Mineral & Waste Local Plan. I also object to quarrying in SIL 02. It is false of Norfolk County Council to say SIL02 has not been allocated whilst retaining 1/3 of the area in Area Of Search, AOS E. It has known mineral deposits, there is a willing landowner, that defines a preferred area. MOD (DIO) objected to the WHOLE of SIL02, I demand that NCC removes this overlap area from their M&WLP.

Objection to NCC
To: Caroline Jeffery, Principal Planner (Minerals and Waste Policy) Norfolk County Council Objection to Quarrying in AOS E and the overlap with SIL 02 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, valuable educational space for children and a recreational area well used by so many people. The lack of an improved glass recycling plan to increase the amount of glass cullet available to UK glass manufacturers makes further quarrying for silica sand at the current rate morally wrong. Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate the woodlands and agricultural farmland in AOS E and remove AOS E from the Mineral & Waste Local Plan. I also object to quarrying in SIL 02. It is false of Norfolk County Council to say SIL02 has not been allocated whilst retaining 1/3 of the area in Area Of Search, AOS E. It has known mineral deposits, there is a willing landowner, that defines a preferred area. MOD (DIO) objected to the WHOLE of SIL02, I demand that NCC removes this overlap area from their M&WLP.


Comments
This is the only Woodlands for miles that my family and friends are able to enjoy, bringing hours of fun and exercise for free!

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

Objection to NCC
To: Caroline Jeffery, Principal Planner (Minerals and Waste Policy) Norfolk County Council Objection to Quarrying in AOS E and the overlap with SIL 02 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, valuable educational space for children and a recreational area well used by so many people. The lack of an improved glass recycling plan to increase the amount of glass cullet available to UK glass manufacturers makes further quarrying for silica sand at the current rate morally wrong. Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate the woodlands and agricultural farmland in AOS E and remove AOS E from the Mineral & Waste Local Plan. I also object to quarrying in SIL 02. It is false of Norfolk County Council to say SIL02 has not been allocated whilst retaining 1/3 of the area in Area Of Search, AOS E. It has known mineral deposits, there is a willing landowner, that defines a preferred area. MOD (DIO) objected to the WHOLE of SIL02, I demand that NCC removes this overlap area from their M&WLP.

Objection to NCC
To: Caroline Jeffery, Principal Planner (Minerals and Waste Policy) Norfolk County Council Objection to Quarrying in AOS E and the overlap with SIL 02 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, valuable educational space for children and a recreational area well used by so many people. The lack of an improved glass recycling plan to increase the amount of glass cullet available to UK glass manufacturers makes further quarrying for silica sand at the current rate morally wrong. Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate the woodlands and agricultural farmland in AOS E and remove AOS E from the Mineral & Waste Local Plan. I also object to quarrying in SIL 02. It is false of Norfolk County Council to say SIL02 has not been allocated whilst retaining 1/3 of the area in Area Of Search, AOS E. It has known mineral deposits, there is a willing landowner, that defines a preferred area. MOD (DIO) objected to the WHOLE of SIL02, I demand that NCC removes this overlap area from their M&WLP.

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

Objection to NCC
To: Caroline Jeffery, Principal Planner (Minerals and Waste Policy) Norfolk County Council Objection to Quarrying in AOS E and the overlap with SIL 02 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, valuable educational space for children and a recreational area well used by so many people. The lack of an improved glass recycling plan to increase the amount of glass cullet available to UK glass manufacturers makes further quarrying for silica sand at the current rate morally wrong. Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate the woodlands and agricultural farmland in AOS E and remove AOS E from the Mineral & Waste Local Plan. I also object to quarrying in SIL 02. It is false of Norfolk County Council to say SIL02 has not been allocated whilst retaining 1/3 of the area in Area Of Search, AOS E. It has known mineral deposits, there is a willing landowner, that defines a preferred area. MOD (DIO) objected to the WHOLE of SIL02, I demand that NCC removes this overlap area from their M&WLP.

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

Shouldham Warren is known and loved by us all. Bikers, hikers, riders, dog walkers, families.
I object to silica sand mining taking place in the area of Shouldham Warren and its surroundings as it is used for outdoor exercise by all the above groups; young and old.
The loss of the area for the community and further afield would be devastating to mental health and well-being and, environmentally a disaster when the recycling of glass to reduce mining for silica sand is easily achievable. "Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate Shouldham Warren in their Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Preferred July 2019

Objection to Quarrying at Shouldham Warren (AOS E)
Shouldham Warren is known and loved by us all. Bikers, hikers, riders, dog walkers, families.
I object to silica sand mining taking place in the area of Shouldham Warren and its surroundings as it is used for outdoor exercise by all the above groups; young and old.
The loss of the area for the community and further afield would be devastating to mental health and well-being and, environmentally a disaster when the recycling of glass to reduce mining for silica sand is easily achievable. "Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate Shouldham Warren in their Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Options July 2019.

Shouldham Warren is known and loved by us all. Bikers, hikers, riders, dog walkers, families.
I object to silica sand mining taking place in the area of Shouldham Warren and its surroundings as it is used for outdoor exercise by all the above groups; young and old.
The loss of the area for the community and further afield would be devastating to mental health and well-being and, environmentally a disaster when the recycling of glass to reduce mining for silica sand is easily achievable. "Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate Shouldham Warren in their Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Preferred Options July 2019.

Objection to Quarrying at Shouldham Warren (AOS E) and the overlap of SIL02
Shouldham Warren (AOSE) including the overlap of SIL02 is a well loved place used by so many in our community and beyond. Bikers, hikers, riders, dog walkers, families.
I object to silica sand mining taking place in the area of Shouldham Warren, Sincks and the overlap of SIL02. These areas are used for outdoor exercise by all the above groups; young and old.
The loss of the area for the community and further afield would be devastating to mental health and well-being and, environmentally a disaster when the recycling of glass to reduce mining for silica sand is easily achievable. "Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA. Trees and green space have become vitally important to us all, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate AOSE and the overlap with SIL02 in their Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Preferred Options July 2019.

Objection to Quarrying at Shouldham Warren (AOS E) and the overlap of SIL02
Shouldham Warren (AOSE) including the overlap of SIL02 is a well loved place used by so many in our community and beyond. Bikers, hikers, riders, dog walkers, families.
I object to silica sand mining taking place in the area of Shouldham Warren, Sincks and the overlap of SIL02. These areas are used for outdoor exercise by all the above groups; young and old.
The loss of the area for the community and further afield would be devastating to mental health and well-being and, environmentally a disaster when the recycling of glass to reduce mining for silica sand is easily achievable. "Our environment is our most precious inheritance," says DEFRA. Trees and green space have become vitally important to us all, so I urge Norfolk County Council to not allocate AOSE and the overlap with SIL02 in their Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Preferred Options July 2019.

Re: Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Preferred Options Consultation
I write on behalf of the Board in relation to site AOS E, which includes the SIL 02 site, within the consultation documents.
This site is within the heart of the Board's District, and would affect several of the Board's Main Drains, and one of our pumping stations. These assets are vital in providing flood protection and land drainage to the local area. Not only to land within the Board's boundary, but also to the villages and land in the highland areas whose water drains into the Board's District.
The Board is concerned that the industrialisation of the area will have a detrimental impact on the Board's operations to maintain our vital watercourses. Therefore based on the information provided in the consultations document, the Board objects to this site being used for mineral abstraction.
I would like to take this opportunity to make you aware of the Board's bylaws;
* No works can take place or structures erected within 9 metres of the edge of a Board Main Drain, without the prior consent of the Board.
* No works can take place or structures erected in, over or under a Board's Main Drain, without the Board's consent.
* No surface or foul water discharge can take place without the prior consent of the Board.
Also, under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991;
* There can be no infilling of a watercourse within the Internal Drainage District, without the prior consent of the Board.
It should be noted that any future permission given for this site by the Council, does not guarantee the consent of this Board.

Please find enclosed the comments and objections of Wormegay Parish Council to the proposal of AOS E and J areas of search and to SIL 02, as requested under the Preferred Options Consultation on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan (M&WLP).
Julian Snape Clerk Wormegay Parish Council
WORMEGAY PARISH COUNCIL October 2019.

Norfolk County Council Waste and Minerals Plan Consultation Comment
Wormegay Parish Council objects to the proposal of AOS E and J as areas of search, furthermore it objects to SIL 02, which although as a preferred site was removed from the plan in name following a significant object from the MOD, has in fact had almost a 1/3rd of it retained within the bounds of AOS E.
The Parish Council has listened to its residents, researched open source information and believes that there is compelling evidence and reasons from the perspective of health and wellbeing, climate change, recycling and preservation of finite minerals and that the economic case is significantly disproportionate in favour of industry rather than the wellbeing of the local community and wider population estimated to be in the thousands every year who use the Shouldham Warren for leisure, educational, Forest Church and a variety sporting activities. This is also underpinned in the Forestry
England Should ham and Bilney Forest Plan 2016-2026. The Forest Plan outlines the need to consider, people, economy and nature and is a fine balance that needs to be carefully sustained. AOS D (West Bilney) as well as AOS E (Should ham Warren) both fall under this Forestry England plan but they have not commented as a consultee nor has the plan been referred to in any of the County officer's responses to other nature related comments. Forestry England are a significant consultee and their 2016-2026 plan has seemingly been overlooked completely.
In addition, the infrastructure from a highways perspective would require significant improvements to make it safe for access and to prevent further adverse impact on the traffic flow along the entire proposed route, which is renowned for long delays at the Hardwick and Hospital roundabouts and roads leading to them. This would mean further roadworks with the associated cost to who? And the disruption and delays while it took place. Monitoring of the yellow hatch box on the Hardwick is already a iow priority and widely disregarded by locals, commercial and tourist traffic due to lack of enforcement and not serving to keep traffic flowing.
It should also be noted that this route increases the heavy goods traffic directly past Wormegay Primary School. This increased noise and associated pollution will only add to the further detriment of the health and wellbeing of both the pupils and staff. Another legacy that we as the guardians of the area cannot and should not burden future generations with.
The prime company (Sibelco) who would likely quarry the site for Silica Sand, if given the planning permission, have a poor track record as a neighbour and despite invitations to discuss what they would likely do by way of restoration have offered nothing, the County Officer's comments on restoration, quote policy and offer no detail or assurance as to how policy would be enforce. we would most likely be left with a scar on the landscape with low level land allowed to fill with water at best or used for landfill at worst; the Should ham mound would disappear along with the features that make it attractive, either way it will never be able to be returned to the positive asset that it represents today.
Climate Change
The UK has signed up to the Paris Agreement which in turn led to the Climate Change Act which commits the UK government by law to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 100% of 1990 levels (net zero) by 2050.
There is an urgent need to plant trees- the Woodland Trust estimates the UK needs to plant 1.5 billion trees by 2050 in order to reach net zero emissions. This is about 30000 hectares. In comparison, the Warren search area is 330 hectares of woodland. It is nonsensical to destroy
existing woodlands when we are not meeting targets for new plantings. A recent news report
detailed how West Norfolk alone had to plant in excess of 64,000 new trees within the next decade.
It takes time to establish woods and we are not in a position to take down any trees at this point in
time. See the Forestry England Plan.
Norfolk needs to play its part in meeting our international obligations, therefore the trees must stay.
It is also interesting to note that Norfolk County Council are in support of a re-wilding venture
currently underway on farm land just outside Kings Lynn. This was featured on BBC television "Inside
Out East". In essence, the scheme, currently funded by the EU and HMG, which will be maintained
after Brexit, aims to return farm land to the wild with the intent to encourage the return of wildlife
and combat climate change. The schemes ambition is to create pathways and "stepping stones" for
wildlife to naturally venture between the Brecks, Norfolk coast and the Fens. AOS E and J both sit in this "pathway". These proposed quarries, yet again, are in direct contrast to other local, national and international projects.
Health and Wellbeing
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 delegated duties to local authorities to improve public health and reduce health inequalities.
* 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. * 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.
Studies have conclusively proven that exposure to forests and trees:
* boosts the immune system
* lowers blood pressure
* reduces stress
* improves mood
* increases ability to focus, even in children with ADHD
* accelerates recovery from surgery or illness
* increases energy level
* improves sleep
The Natural Environment White Paper addresses the importance of accessible green space and links to human health.
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.
West Norfolk is one of the highest areas in the country for GP prescribing of antidepressants, an indication of a high prevalence of depression and anxiety in the local population.
The NHS is under huge strain already trying to treat people, and the county council must do
everything in its power to enable people to lead healthier lives, to reduce the burden on health
services.
Shouldham Warren is used by a very large number of people from the surrounding areas to walk,
cycle, and 'forest bathe'. It is used by cycling groups and of the Ryston Runners have their races here
every winter which are attended by a very large number of children and adults from far and wide.
There is no other wooded area in this part of West Norfolk which could be used instead, and there is
no doubt in my mind that people's health will suffer if they are denied access to these woods.
Norfolk County Council should also be made aware that there is local anecdotal evidence to suggest
that the area of wood known as Mow Fen has been used as a route for the monks to camp and rest
whilst travelling between various abbeys and religious festivals within the west Norfolk area. This
would suggest that this fen would be of historic interest. This should be coupled with the fact that
the small bridge near thee pumping station at Wormegay and Mow Fen was built by the Canadian
forces during World War 2. The bridge and the Mission room within Wormegay were gifted to the
village. Therefore, one would suggest that this bridge on the approach of Mow Fen is also of
significant historical value.
If NCC goes ahead with giving permission to explore the area for sand quarrying, it will demonstrate
a disregard for the population today and, perhaps more importantly, future generations; Norfolk
County Council will fail in its obligations to look after the health of the people of Norfolk.
Recycling and Preservation of Finite Mineral Resource.
The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government document, the 'National Planning Policy Framework', sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these should be applied. The document states (Section 2: Achieving Sustainable Development, at para 7), "The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" - Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly. The document also states (Section 17: Facilitating the Sustainable Use of Minerals, at para 203), "It is essential that there is a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. Since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, best use needs to be made of them to secure their long-term conservation." As stated, sustainable development should not compromise future generations to meet their own needs, and that minerals are a finite natural resource; quarrying is not sustainable and committing to it for the next generation is to show neglect of duty. Here in Norfolk, as we do in many fields, we should look to model best practice for the UK strategy and have the vision to ensure we do not compromise future generations. The NPPF states, 'Planning policies should: .... so far as practicable, take account of the contribution that suitable or secondary and recycled materials and minerals waste would make to the supply of materials, before considering extraction of primary materials ... ' (Sect 17, para 204. b). There is no attempt within the NCC M&WLP to discuss how improved recycling or reuse of glass within Norfolk, nor indeed the rest of the country, would reduce the amount of silica sand (primary material) extracted each year.
Economics
What are the employment opportunities? I believe that only 1 or 2 jobs will be created at the quarry site, as quoted by Mike Hurley, Sibelco Chief Ops Officer. Approximately 45 jobs will maintained at the Leziate site but no extra jobs will be created there (Sibelco only employ 389 people in the whole
of the UK). Sibelco claim to support down-stream jobs in the glass making industry; however, it isn't Sibelco who support those jobs it is the raw silica sand and that could come from any other source including importation. There is no value to the sand for Norfolk, just profit for the Belgian owned company Sibelco.
Norfolk County Council's (NCC) assertion that Sibelco bring and maintains jobs in Norfolk does not hold water. As seen from an article in the EDP 75% of the sand is transported out of Norfolk by rail. The statements made by the Sibelco employee in the article mean that only a handful of HGV jobs are being supported by the transportation of sand in Norfolk. Sibelco estimate 800,000 - 900,000 tonnes of sand will be extracted per year; NCC figures are 735,000 - 750,000; therefore a train with l000t = at least 2 trains per day to haul 75% of total 8 - 9k tonnes per yr. The remaining 25% at 28 tonnes per HGV equates to 8035 road trips per year, equating to 5 trips per day, which in turn equals 7-8 drivers.
Therefore, to retain a few jobs we must accept the destruction of the countryside, the wildlife, our villages, our property, our health and the small matter of national security and the well-being of one of our biggest employers in West Norfolk, RAF Marham. If however, we were to import sand to the glass manufacturers that would maintain glass making jobs in the North of England and presumably the transport jobs to move the sand to the glass factories. This would have the positive outcome of no further job losses in the north of England.
Similarly, rather than sand haulage, transporting waste glass for recycling would maintain jobs in the haulage industry in Norfolk if there were to be an advanced glass recycling facility built in Norfolk. To offset any carbon emissions from that additional HGV traffic the train line at Leziate could still be used to bring glass into Norfolk for recycling and to carry the recycled glass cullet from the new, clean, green recycling facility at Leziate.
Surely, that is a win - win situation?
It has been stated that the proposal will be adding value to the local economy? As previously stated, they are only creating a couple of jobs. Sibelco does not, at present, use local plant hire companies since they contract from D. Wardle Plant Hire, a company in Cheshire. Indeed, Sibelco's representative, Mr Hurley, has said at public meetings that there would be no economic benefit to the area of Should ham and the surrounding area.
Further to this, the sand is not used in industry here in Norfolk. The sand is exported beyond Norfolk's borders to be used in glassmaking elsewhere. Therefore, Sibelco will add nothing extra to either the local economy or that of Norfolk in general.
From Sibelco's latest published accounts (2017) we believe they paid £1.4M in UK tax and £245K in business rates (for the Leziate plant) as part of their claim of putting £15M into Norfolk economy. The 2017 Financial return shows £3.8M in total UK plant costs. Sibelco hire plant from a Cheshire firm, D Wardle Plant hire, as stated, this is not beneficial to Norfolk's economy. The average UK Sibelco wage was £37.SK in 2017. The Leziate site supports 45 jobs and SIL 02 would have equalled 1 or 2 jobs created equating to a £1.76M wage bill in Norfolk. These figures do not add up to anything close to the £15M that Sibelco claim to put into Norfolk's economy each year.
Aircraft Bird strike Hazard
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 flO0M+ per 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 could 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 cannot 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.
It should be remembered that the large element of SIL 02 left in AOS E is a low-lying area and would be left as a wetland and that the entire AOS E & J are within the statutory 13 km exclusion zone for airfields. It should also be noted that wetland birds migrate in large numbers, are unfamiliar with the very loud F-35 engine noise and will be 'spooked to flight' in a dense mass that is unavoidable by the pilot. It should also be noted that the migration routes of such large birds will alter to take advantage of new feeding grounds left by a quarry and their flightpath will not be known until they arrive or depart and they do not file flight plans for traffic deconfliction !
Summary The destruction of Should ham Warren is too high a price to pay in all respects for the silica sand it holds. There is no tangible benefit to West Norfolk communities. There are other areas nationally and internationally other than AOS E & J. In the short term existing sites can continue to be exploited by necessity that have less effect on a community. This will allow the country and Norfolk County Council to address the longer term and legacy issues demonstrated. It will also give the opportunity to properly address the requirement to recycle more effectively and find sustainable processes for the longer term.
Norfolk County Council and the Government should be convincing companies like Sibelco to evolve toward a more sustainable model, perhaps by providing incentives and punitive measures to encourage it on that essential journey rather than adopting the path of least resistance currently being demonstrated by utilising what can only be described as damaging and everlasting "smash and grab" tactics.

I wish to comment and object to inclusion of mineral sites on the latest review of the NM&WLP
I have read that MIN 74 and 77 have been considered unsuitable due the location to Tottenhill Row conservation area and negative impact to the landscape.
I agree that any bunding / screening for MIN 74 would be unable to hide the impact on the said area.
However I believe that these statements have been spoken before relating to MIN 75 and 76 when in question.
MIN 76 was taken off the local plan but years later reinstated when MIN 75 was granted planning consent. I therefore fear that history will repeat itself where sites have been claimed to be unsuitable then applied for at a later date.
If the noise and dust experienced from both MIN 75 and 76 are anything to go by, this will be a sad state of affairs if the sites are ever granted permission due to the fact that they are on the Local plan.
The local residents explained their concerns on these previous sites which are so close to the common and houses but these concerns were dismissed.
The overall appearance to this area has changed so dramatically the question needs to be asked is continued quarrying sustainable within this location.
I suspect that the amount of quarrying taking place in this immediate area must have an effect on the water table. During the summer months, the well on my property, dried up along with the cessation of the spring feeding the pond known as Spring pit located within the conservation area. These matters cause me concern about subsidence to the properties in the immediate vicinity. This has to be a planning consideration despite the Hydrological reports supplied by the applicants.
I would like to bring your attention to the congestion on the Al0 which is now at its highest level. Although the proposed sand and gravel sites sites are supposed to be phased in over the duration of the NM & WLP, the combination of multiple sites, such as Sand and gravel site, local Silica sites and the recently approved Safari park will only create even more of a bottleneck at Oakwood corner roundabout and beyond. The accumulative effect will reduce access onto the roundabout giving rise to stationary traffic for longer periods increasing pollutants
With reference to the proximity of local sites on the map to my home, I can conclude the following;
MIN 74 Unsuitable due to the proximity to the houses on Tottenhill Row and conservation area and would be intrusive to the front and rear of this small unique community
MIN 77 is unsuitable due to the devastation of deciduous woodland which has an untold significant biodiversity value to this already decimated area of deep marunade pits
MIN 206 Unsuitable due to the previously oversubscribed amount of quarrying in this community. This area is exhausted and fatigued from quarrying.
AOS J /E/1 these are all unsuitable due to the extraordinary uniqueness of this woodland area. The area has great notoriety for families young and old to enjoy outdoor activities. This is immensely invaluable to health and well being. The quarrying in the short term will create more water pits which absorb no Co2 comapred to woodland and vegetation. We all need to believe this is needed for future generations and the future of our planet.
Deep water pits provide no benefit to any of us

I am writing, as chairman, on behalf of Norfolk Orienteering Club to object to the planning application for the quarrying of 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.
We are a club of 120 members, who regularly use Shouldham Warren and the Sincks for our orienteering events. The area is particularly important to us as it is one of the best bits of forest in North West Norfolk, which we have access to. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get access to good quality orienteering terrain and the loss of this area would be a major blow to our club.
Our local events attract up to 150 competitors, from all age groups and with varying abilities, and are important events for our club members who live in the West part of Norfolk.
It is used for outdoor exercise by 1 000s of people; young and old. The loss of long- established woodlands would be devastating for mental health and physical well-being.
We have also used the area for regional competitions and last year the Regional Compass Sport Cup heats took place at Shouldham Warren with clubs from all over East Anglia attending. Around 500 competitors took part and the Norfolk club won the competition and for the first time in the club's history we progressed through to the National final. As part of the preparation for this event the area was professionally remapped, which involves a significant investment in time and money and which takes several years to recoup the cost by holding regular events on the area.
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 CO2 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, in addition to Norfolk Orienteering club.
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, menta land 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.
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 and hope that you will understand what the loss will mean to our club.
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.
Please consider this objection to the planning application carefully, because as you see the loss of this area will have a significant impact on the local orienteering community in the west of Norfolk and will involve local members having to travel further, more often, to enjoy their sport.

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 £10OM 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.

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 £10OM 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.

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 £10OM 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.

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 £10OM 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.

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 £10OM 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.

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 £10OM 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.

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 £10OM 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.

Proposed sites for mineral extraction from Shouldham Warren and surrounding area.
Dear Ms Jeffrey,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the above proposals, how it will affect the local and wider communities in Norfolk and many other aspects as identified in this letter. I am sure that you are well aware of the recent programme 'Inside Out East', which discusses the importance of "re-wilding" West Norfolk. There has also been much made of the importance of physical & mental health via "Gardener's World" of green spaces, nature and gardening. 'Visitnorfolk.co' advertises the Shouldham Warren and surrounding areas on its website.
Climate change:
At the moment there is so much emphasis on the importance of dealing with climate change. As a result, we must ensure that we are preserving our green spaces for future generations. Why are we considering further mineral extraction in West Norfolk when we are supposed to be re-wilding the area?? It seems to be quite a contradiction to set targets to plant 64,000 new trees and then cut all of them down Shouldham Warren. We know that the government puts pressure on the County Council to extract sand BUT perhaps if we had much better recycling systems in place this might not be necessary.
The local communities are regularly lambasted about recycling, but what's the point of us continuing when much of what we recycle either is incinerated, placed in landfill or is sent abroad?? This is a much more important issue the borough and County Council should be addressing to help reduce our impact on climate change.
The importance of trees to reduce CO2 emissions is vital, so why cut them down so a Belgian company, Sibelco can make a profit that goes out of this country and doesn't benefit us at all but instead destroys our natural habitats, countryside and impacts on all of our health??
There are many species within Shouldham Warren which will be destroyed if we allow Sibelco to go ahead, bats, rare moths, rare wild flowers and of course deer, foxes, squirrels, etc etc. Can the council demonstrate that they have surveyed the woods to identify the presence of bats? I work at Oxburgh Hall and there are bats in the rooms which the National Trust has to leave despite any damage they may do, surely the same applies to the woods??
Health and Wellbeing:
As a retired nurse of 40 years, much of this in mental health, I am well aware of the importance of green, open spaces in helping to manage both physical and mental health. As I have already stated it is being increasingly discovered that gardening, being out in green spaces is very beneficial. Dog walking is also seen as important: prolonging by 30% life spans. There are many people who travel distance to walk their dogs in Shouldham Warren. They come because they enjoy the woods, have somewhere to walk their dogs and it benefits their physical and mental health. Anti-depressant use in West Norfolk is high with a prevalence of anxiety and depression in the local population.
There are many other groups such as cyclists, Nordic walkers, running groups who use the woods. Surely this is highly beneficial and effective in tackling health issues such as obesity, mental health, cardiac problems, etc etc??? Why be so short-sighted in destroying an area which is used by families and so many groups??
Recycling and preservation of future mineral resource:
We known that there is a lot of sand in the local areas, but quarrying has a detrimental impact as already stated.
I am sure that residents would rather pay a bit more on council tax to have better recycling than losing their natural environments and wildlife??
We would prefer to have less quarrying for sand and better reuse of glass!!
Economics:
There are no additional employment benefits of any substance that would benefit the local community of West Norfolk. All profits from quarrying go to the Belgian company, why are we doing this, who is benefiting? Someone in government? You begin to wonder what the motivation is!!
Has anyone considered the impact on tourism or the loss of countryside? Many tourist come back to these areas and spend money which benefits the local economy. Do we want so many quarries in West Norfolk, is it such a poor relation that the County Council doesn't care? Unfortunately, this is short sighted as money needs to be spent on people due to loss of earnings and the detrimental impact on health and social services, if we do nothing to preserve our countryside.
Aircraft Bird Strike Hazard:
RAF Marham is close to the woods. We know that the MOD vetoed past plans. Developing new quarries so close to where aircraft fly is dangerous and potentially could impact gravely on the surrounding villages and traffic.
If this project was to go ahead there will be an increase in traffic. Much of West Norfolk becomes gridlocked already, particularly during the summer months, this will impact on and deter tourists. It will affect the local economy as lorries will be delayed elsewhere due to lorries from quarry sites. Pollution will rise and more health problems will develop.
Not a very good prospect for future generations is it? All to allow profit for someone who doesn't care about West Norfolk.
We cannot allow this quarry plan to go ahead we need our woods and local countryside.
I strongly object to this.

I am writing to object to your proposed quarrying of AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02 in the Norfolk Minerals and waste local plan.
I feel very strongly that at this time when as a country and a county we are being told we should be planting trees to help off set Global warming we should be trying to conserve all trees possible rather than sacrificing this already established and managed woodland to make way for this quarry.
I think as a county we should doing a great deal more to recycle the glass already in circulation so taking away the need for the quarry. Rather than quarrying for new sources of silica sand, the planet does not have infinite resources of minerals and if as a population we just keep looking for a new source we will at some point in the future simply run out. Instead of destroying our environment can we not make Norfolk into a flagship county in our recycling projects.
Your proposed route to take traffic in and and out of the site will involve them joining the A 134 this is a very dangerous road and there have been many accidents around the turnings to Shouldham and the Sinks due to it being a fast road that has hidden turnings and blind dips in the road. If you surveyed the road you would see its unsuitability which would lead to an unacceptable increases in the additional risk to life.
I have worked for a long time in the community 0-19 children's services and more recently in children's mental health early intervention services which as you know is a government priority at the moment. One of the main messages we try to instil in all children is how to protect and look after their own mental and emotional health. One of the key messages is to get out into the open air and nature, to come away from screens and social media and be more active like going for a walk to do this you need open welcoming enriching outdoor spaces. The warren is used by young people and families to run, bike ride, walk dogs, build dens, climb trees, meet friends and be able to experience a level of independence and risk taking which for many is not available anywhere else in their lives. To this end the warren is used by schools, youth groups, cubs, brownies, scouts, guides groups, various clubs and associations. They come from a wide area to use this resource as the warren is such a unique place for young people to use.
In the same way it used by adults and has the same benefits to their emotional and mental health.
This use of the Warren by people also has a positive affect on physical health and the amount of exercise people are taking and is helping with the populations battle with obesity which is another health campaign the government are at present championing.
I feel that should you go ahead with this proposed destruction of the area with your quarry, you would be in direct conflict with the governments health policies.
At the moment you can not fail to hear of various high profile campaigns about the loss of our
nations wildlife. The Warren is full of wildlife and is a great environment for species to thrive in and a good place for the public to observe and learning about native species. Is it worth loosing this natural resource just to get at the sand?
Should this quarry actually take place it will have a huge affect on the local economy and jobs, the loss of agricultural land and negative affects on our local wild life with a potential to damage the local water supply. Also loss of this natural resource which plays such an important part for many people in protecting their emotional and mental health.