AOS E - land to the north of Shouldham

Object

Representation ID: 98497

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Sonia Williams

OBJECTION TO AOS E - LAND BETWEEN MARHAM AND SHOULDHAM INCLUDES SHOULDHAM WARREN
I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is still included in AOS E. We were led to understand that the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals meant that the original area of SIL02 was no longer being considered. The reasons for the Ministry of Defence' s concerns surely still apply to the area of SIL 02 that has been included in this new proposal ?
I object to the proposed destruction of a large area of woodland that is rich in diverse wildlife and I am appalled that this is even being considered when we are being constantly told that every tree is precious and entreated to plant more. The architects of this proposal seem to have no concerns that this area will never be restored to its present state and will be lost forever. Sibelco have a very poor record of any sort of restoration.
Shouldham Warren is extensively used by many people of all ages as a recreational space with horse riding, cycling, running as well as many many walkers.

I object on the grounds that the impact on the surrounding villages will be enormous. In addition to the destruction of the beautiful area we live in there would be constant noise, dust and traffic from heavy vehicles. There would also be huge light pollution from the floodlighting needed which would disturb and probably cause loss of the varied and numerous varieties of wildlife that move around at night.
I object to the proposal that the heavy vehicles would join the A134 and then travel via the A10 and A149 to Leziate. Has anyone in Norfolk County Council ever travelled on these roads particularly in summer? The A10 and Hardwick Roundabout regularly come to a complete standstill and there are also proposals to build a huge number of houses at West Winch which will add considerably to the traffic on the A10 and at the Hardwick Roundabout. The A149 from the Hardwick Roundabout to the hospital roundabout frequently travels at a crawl. The idea of huge quarry vehicles joining this traffic is quite shocking.
I also object to the fact that a private Belgian company is being allowed to have such a detrimental effect on the lives of people living in a large number of villages because of their stated need for silica sand to produce clear glass. The obvious answer is to follow Government guidelines and recycle more glass but I suspect this would cost far more than allowing a beautiful area of woodland to be destroyed. The quality of the lives of all the people living in the villages surrounding such a quarry would be seriously damaged and their homes would be devalued but surely this is not a price that Norfolk County Council should even be considering?

Object

Representation ID: 98498

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Mr David Bertram

I object to AOSE, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL02 in the Norfolk Minerals & Waste Local Plan. I also Object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL02, when in reality a third of it is now still included in AOSE.
My objections are primarily that looking at continuing with this application would conflict with important existing policies not only of Norfolk County Council but also of National Government. Those policies reflect matters of great public concern namely Climate Change. Health and Well-being, both physical and mental and Sustainability. The loss in particular of Shouldham Warren would lead to not only undermining those key policies but it would also have severe detrimental impact on their aims.
For many years Shouldham Warren has been open to public access and is as a result used by thousands annually. On any day of the year people can be seen walking, running, cycling or riding in the woods. As someone who has lived in Shouldham for over thirty years, I have witnessed an increasing use of the Warren by organised groups such as school parties for educational and fitness purposes, Mountain Bike Clubs, Athletic Clubs and Rescue Organisations. There is considerable scientific evidence that informs Government policy on the benefits of taking exercise in the countryside, and indeed Norfolk County Council's recent Facebook campaign to get older citizens to join in outdoor physical exercise in particular endorses this. Increasingly, it is being promoted in respect of both Mental Well-being as well as physical health. Shouldham Warren should be regarded as a community resource that is used not only by the surrounding villages but also by residents of Downham Market and King's Lynn.
The Warren has for many years been leased by the Hare Estate to the Forestry Commission who use it as an economically sustainable business through the cropping and re-planting of trees. This process meets not only the needs of a sustainable, ecological business but provides an important local contribution to carbon offset through the thousands of trees that absorb the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Their loss would severely damage the County Council's own target to expand tree numbers in Norfolk as part of the co-ordinated response to Climate Change. As such, it would seem accurate to describe the Warren as the 'lungs' of this part of Norfolk.
The area that the County Council is now considering for sand extraction includes land adjacent to Shouldham Warren that was originally in SIL02.
This flat land would no doubt be subject to the wet extraction methods already proposed by Sibelco. This will inevitably lead to the creation of large areas of water that will attract wild geese. Bearing in mind that the Ministry of Defence has already raised concerns over the potentially devastating effect of bird strike on aircraft flying into and out of RAF Marham airbase, it would appear to be illogical and risky not to respond to these concerns for this land that was part of the original designated area; especially as it sits well within the 13-kilometre exclusion area, designated by the MOD to avoid such incidents. The County Counil have a duty to safeguard the neighbouring population from the risk of an aircraft crashing as the result of bird strike.

Sand extracted from the Warren would necessitate dry quarrying involving the use of HGVs to transport the material to Leziate. The route for these lorries would be down the A134 to the A10 along to the Hardwick Roundabout and then on the A149. This route is already subject to heavy congestion and to add fresh traffic problems would seem to be indefensible in terms of the delays caused to businesses and workers struggling to enter or exit the King's Lynn area, let alone the impact on holiday makers in the summer months. HGVs are known to be heavily polluting vehicles with their dependency on diesel fuel and to envisage such a large and regular increases in pollution would seem to counter all current policy aims.
Finally, silica is a finite resource and it would seem much more pertinent in terms of sustainability policies to look at increasing the capture and use of recycled glass, an aim in which Norfolk has much room to improve.
Please record this letter as my objection.

Object

Representation ID: 98499

Received: 29/10/2019

Respondent: Carroll Cowin

I write to notify you of my objections to the above proposals affecting Shouldham Warren and adjoining areas. My objections are listed below.
Shouldham Warren is an extensive area of much loved beautiful woodland offering space to wander freely and safely, to experience all the extensively researched and documented benefits to mental and physical health of being in the midst of nature. I object to proposals which would destroy this resource for the people of West Norfolk
Shouldham Warren by its existence fulfils the stated aims of many local, regional and national government departments and authorities, benefitting public health and wellbeing, nurturing biodiversity, maintaining tree cover in a region low in trees, and offering space to plant more. The Warren is currently an example of the kind of tree covered landscape, both government and scientists have identified as a precious resource, vital in the urgent campaign to plant more trees to absorb and store carbon safely, effectively and cheaply. I object to proposals that endanger existing tree cover and destroy biodiversity.
Norfolk County Council's own planning guidelines state that; 'mineral development (extraction) will be located, designed and operated without adverse impacts on the amenity of local communities, the natural, built and
historic environment, the landscape (and townscape) of Norfolk. They will also minimize the impacts of climate change.' I object to proposals that, if permitted, contradict the published vision of Norfolk County Council and undermine public trust in its integrity.
The Councils stated vision is 'to make the most of our heritage, culture and environment. To protect and enhance Norfolk's biodiversity, ensuring biodiversity is integrated into strategies, plans and programmes.' Shouldham Warren, managed by the Forestry commission since 1943 on a 999 year lease, has evolved into an island of biodiversity surrounded by an intensively farmed monocrop landscape. Shouldham Warren is home to many different birds, both native and migratory, also reptiles, insects, mammals, fungi, and tree and plant species. It is a vibrant, diverse, complex interconnected web of living
organisms, which would be permanently destroyed by sand mining. I object to proposals that would devastate this woodland ecosystem and in no way reflect the Councils previously published intentions.
In earlier proposals to allow sand extraction in and around West Norfolk, affected communities such as Snettisham, Bilney and Marham have all had to fight and register objections to preserve their cherished local landscapes,
woodlands and amenity areas. In every case the reasons for objections have been similar. Destruction of woodlands, agricultural land, altering the character of local landscapes, threatening livelihoods, increased heavy goods
traffic on narrow rural roads or causing congestion on busy local traffic bottlenecks. In each case these factors have been considered and found to be unacceptable. Why then, is Shouldham Warren now being considered? When even more than any of the former sites it is promoted as a nature reserve, a beauty spot, a visitor destination and an outstanding area of woodland in an area with few such attractive places on its doorstep. For the citizens of Downham Market, I object. On behalf of the many walkers, horse riders,
cyclists, nature lovers, community groups, and local residents living round the Warren and in adjoining villages of Shouldham, Wormegay and Marham, I object.
I object because sand mining Shouldham warren has no benefit to local communities and threatens only loss of irreplaceable woodland amenities, a resource that has been and can continue to be sustainably managed to help meet government goals for natural resources, climate change, and better quality of life for all'
The Forestry Commissions current Shouldham Forest Plan describes the woods as, 'a nature reserve - an undulating site on the edge of the Fens with healthy woodland walks.' The Commission also describes the area as being, well used, offering opportunity to access the countryside in an area otherwise extensively farmed.' In line with Forestry commission corporate aims, Shouldham Warren currently encourages public access, car parking, signposted walks, information boards, bridleways and footpaths. Events are held there and as it has become widely known visitor numbers have greatly increased over recent decades. As well as providing a pleasant forest environment for informal recreation the Warren also yields timber revenue from a sustainably managed source and provides space for nature. This is an example of a natural resource being used with care, to meet the needs of generations now and in the future.
I object to sand mining Shouldham Warren because it is a one off exploitation of a finite resource. It represents a loss of much loved beautiful woodlands, an amenity for many people, sacrificed for the short term gain of a foreign corporation. Norfolk County Council will be failing in its duty to protect the wellbeing and health of its own residents and the Council would also be acting against its own stated aims and policies and the publicised intentions of the current government if members permit the destruction of Shouldham Warren by sand extraction.

Object

Representation ID: 98500

Received: 22/10/2019

Respondent: Miss Anna Dixon

I have lived and worked in the area for many years and still visit family in the area concerned and so for those reasons alone know it very well particularly Shouldham and the Warren. To think that this is now under threat is utterly unthinkable.
As a long term worker in the health and psychiatric sector I know only too well the devastating effect that this threat will have on the mental health of all of the residents putting in turn a huge strain on the already overburdened National Health Service particularly the Queen Elizabeth hospital.
The gridlocks in the road network around that area has become an all too familiar sight and the proposal of more housing will only Increase these factors again I speak from experience and feel that traffic generated by the above plan will greatly exacerbate the problem.
The destruction of established habitat for wildlife and trees alone makes no sense especially at a time when climate change is presenting a very real problem to all of humanity which this plan would contribute to in the extreme.
I therefore object wholeheartedly and support and submit the objections letter enclosed.

I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection,

Object

Representation ID: 98506

Received: 12/10/2019

Respondent: Mr M Wadham

WE ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA AND HAVE BEEN SO FOR MANY DECADES AS WE HAVE IMMEDIATE FAMILY LIVING THERE AND AS WE ARE CURRENTLY VISITING CAN SEE FOR OURSELVES THE VAST AREA THAT THIS INVOLVES.
THIS ESTABLISHED TRANQUIL AREA HAS MANY BENEFITS TO OUR FAMILY'S AND OTHER RESIDENTS' WELLBEING THAT WE HAVE SEEN AND EXPERIENCED FIRSTHAND.
WE ARE TOTALLY OPPOSED REGARDING THE MINERALS AND WASTE PLAN REFERENCED ABOVE AND SUPPORT THE OBJECTIONS LISTED IN THE ENCLOSED LETTER AND SUBMIT TO YOU FOUR SEPARATE AND COMPLETED LETTERS OF THE SAME TO REGISTER OUR OBJECTIONS WITH YOU FOR THE RETAINMENT OF THIS BEAUTIFUL, RICH, HISTORICAL, LANDSCAPE AND TO DESTROY THIS WOULD DEVASTATE MANY PEOPLE'S LIVES AND RICH HABITAT FOR MANY, MANY GENERATIONS TO COME.

I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection,

Object

Representation ID: 98507

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mr Stephen & Richard Male & MacDowell

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren
I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due* to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
i further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit but with multiple risks dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection

Object

Representation ID: 98508

Received: 22/10/2019

Respondent: Mr C Bone

We have a strong commitment to Shouldham as we have family living there and as we have been visiting for decades know the surrounding area very well, Shouldham Warren being our "go to place" to benefit from the peace and tranquillity.
We are at present visiting and cannot comprehend the vast area that would be involved regarding the above plan. We are deeply concerned how this would change lives and the landscape in a detrimental manner for decades to come. Noticing too over just the last decade the effects that the increased traffic is having on the surrounding areas and in addition without question the approach roads via Shouldham and Marham are ill equipped and cannot sustain heavy plant traffic.
We oppose in every sense the above plan. Therefore please find enclosed our individual objections.

I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection,

Object

Representation ID: 98509

Received: 22/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs F Bone

We have a strong commitment to Shouldham as we have family living there and as we have been visiting for decades know the surrounding area very well, Shouldham Warren being our "go to place" to benefit from the peace and tranquillity.
We are at present visiting and cannot comprehend the vast area that would be involved regarding the above plan. We are deeply concerned how this would change lives and the landscape in a detrimental manner for decades to come. Noticing too over just the last decade the effects that the increased traffic is having on the surrounding areas and in addition without question the approach roads via Shouldham and Marham are ill equipped and cannot sustain heavy plant traffic.
We oppose in every sense the above plan. Therefore please find enclosed our individual objections.

I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection,

Object

Representation ID: 98510

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Anderson

Ref: Objection to AOS E - Proposed Area for Silica Sand Extraction - Shouldham Warren - Marham Fen and all surrounding areas- including SIL 02 of any and all overlap.
This area is well known to us through visiting family and friends and is well reknowned as a place of peace and tranquillity and this must be preserved for generations to come.
We are in total agreement of the documented points of objection and we therefore submit our objections individually to you which are enclosed.
Thank you for your kind attention.

I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection,

Object

Representation ID: 98511

Received: 24/10/2019

Respondent: Mr J Sadler

I 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 and re-badging as an Area Of Search, AOS E This area has known mineral deposits and there is a willing landowner. These are the criteria that define a. Preferred area. NCC has agreed with the MOD (DIO) objection to SIL 02 that the WHOLE of SIL02 should be removed but has conscious chosen to ignore it by not removing the overlap area of SIL02 and AOS entirely. I object to this and demand that NCC removes this overlap area from their M&WLP.
Thank you. Please record this as an objection

Object

Representation ID: 98513

Received: 11/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs Anderson

Ref: Objection to AOS E - Proposed Area for Silica Sand Extraction - Shouldham Warren - Marham Fen and all surrounding areas- including SIL 02 of any and all overlap.
This area is well known to us through visiting family and friends and is well reknowned as a place of peace and tranquillity and this must be preserved for generations to come.
We are in total agreement of the documented points of objection and we therefore submit our objections individually to you which are enclosed.
Thank you for your kind attention.

I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection,

Object

Representation ID: 98514

Received: 22/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Bignell

FORMAL OBJECTION SIL02 / AOSE QUARRY PLAN
I am writing to formally object to NCC misrepresentation of the MOD DIO which clearly denied Sibelco the right to develop SIL 02 as a Silica Quarry Site.
At the time of the DIO the SIL02 site was defined absolutely, which included an overlap into the AOSE defined area.
But the DIO was for the full extent of the SIL02 defined area, it is therefore wrong for NCC, or any other political body, to subsequently redefine the application of the DIO and limit the extent to the area outside of the overlap.
I am writing to the MOD, our MP and seeking legal representation in this matter, as it is completely wrong for others to redefine the area in line with their own objectives when the MOD DIO was for the whole SIL02 area and not limited.

Object

Representation ID: 98515

Received: 22/10/2019

Respondent: Mr David Bignell

FORMAL OBJECTION SIL02 / AOSE QUARRY PLAN
I am writing to formally object to NCC misrepresentation of the MOD DIO which clearly denied Sibelco the right to develop SIL 02 as a Silica Quarry Site.
At the time of the DIO the SIL02 site was defined absolutely, which included an overlap into the AOSE defined area.
But the DIO was for the full extent of the SIL02 defined area, it is therefore wrong for NCC, or any other political body, to subsequently redefine the application of the DIO and limit the extent to the area outside of the overlap.
I am writing to the MOD, our MP and seeking legal representation in this matter, as it is completely wrong for others to redefine the area in line with their own objectives when the MOD DIO was for the whole SIL02 area and not limited.

Object

Representation ID: 98516

Received: 24/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Sadler

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren.
I 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 and re-badging as an Area Of Search, AOS E This area has known mineral deposits and there is a willing landowner. These are the criteria that define a. Preferred area. NCC has agreed with the MOD (DIO) objection to SIL 02 that the WHOLE of SIL02 should be removed but has conscious chosen to ignore it by not removing the overlap area of SIL02 and AOS entirely. I object to this and demand that NCC removes this overlap area from their M&WLP.
Thank you
Please record this as an objection.

Object

Representation ID: 98517

Received: 26/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Barry Caley

I am replying to your letter of the 13th Sept 2019. My views as an individual and also as a trustee of Marham Poors Allotments remain the same as my letter of the 18th august 2019. Probably even more so due to the latest development of the area in question.
It was announced that SIL02 had been removed from AOSE but in effect 1/3 still remains in the overlap. The fact that NCC has deliberately tried to mislead residents have done them no favours and so we remain totally opposed to any development of quarrying in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 98519

Received: 10/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Sharon Ludford

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren
As a resident of Marham, who regularly walks in Shouldham Warren and the surrounding countryside, I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I am dismayed and 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.

[Redacted text - personal data] walking in such a lovely area local to me, being close to nature [redacted text - personal data]. I call Shouldham Warren my green gym. It is obvious from the number and different ages and interests of people I see in Shouldham Warren that I am not alone. I see families walking, chatting, learning about nature, children running, cycling, laughing and playing. I see lone dog walkers relaxing, enjoying the trees and fresh air. I see mountain bikers, runners, horse riders.
The loss of this greenspace will have a big impact and be a dreadful loss to local residents, but also the wider residents of Norfolk who visit the area. For example, the Walking for Health group who are supported by King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council and linked to Active Norfolk. Before moving to Marham, we used to drive over from King's Lynn with my two children to walk, bird watch or cycle around the Warren, I am sure other families still do so!

Health bodies are concerned about the increase in mental illness, depression, obesity and child obesity. We all have a responsibility to protect places that enable people to access open green space to contribute to their health and well being.

I object to the destruction of Shouldham Warren, with regards to nature and as a habitats for birds, animals and insects. I have been informed that the Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. As young people have been taking their concerns about climate change to the streets in protest we certainly should be protecting trees, nature and our environment.

A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans and the increased flow of heavy articulated lorries and resulting emissions. 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 Bawsey site was poorly managed, attracted anti-social behaviour, caused regular unsafe parking on a busy dangerous road and has been a burden to limited police resources.

As the County Council are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, I urge you to consider and take notice of the points I have made within this letter.

Please record this as my objection.

Object

Representation ID: 98520

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Oddey

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren
I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02 in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection.

Object

Representation ID: 98521

Received: 29/10/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs T W & W J Luxford & Halford

Number of people: 2

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren
I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02 in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection

Object

Representation ID: 98523

Received: 28/10/2019

Respondent: Miss J Wadham

Would you please be kind enough to add the following comments to my objection letters sent to you in August 2018 and September 2019.
Information as per- COUNTRY FILE - BBC 1- October 2019 .... "Trees are our heroes -they are the greatest carbon storers and England alone has under achieved its commitment to tree planting by 71%" It makes no sense in light of just these figures to destroy our carbon saviours and already established habitat in light of the crises that we face from global warming.
In addition to the above we are also under achieving our glass recycling by a large percentage. Should'nt we therefore be trying our hardest to manage our resources much more efficiently instead of continuing to take.
My family and I through hard work - as have many others - contributed to not only the "state kitty'' over many generations but for at least the last four decades have supported the local and wider Norfolk economies. Is it our payback then to be left with years of pollution, noise and a devastated landscape and the very real possibility of being "locked "into our homes being unable to move, lf we wanted to because of the marked depreciation of our homes and being unable to enjoy its surroundings because it has been taken from us.
Does Norfolk County Council really want to put it's name to what would be destruction of a wonderful rich habitat and people's lives?

Object

Representation ID: 98525

Received: 02/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs A Phillips

I object to the above proposal and the overlap formally SIL 02. The harsh reality is that Norfolk County Council deliberately misled us to believe that the removal of SIL 02 was entire, when in fact a third of it is now included in AOS E. Well done to the M.O.D. for their objections, which thankfully for safety reasons above all, the "removal" of SIL 02 was made.
For all of the workers at Norfolk County Council who work and live around Norwich and surrounding areas and have no idea where Shouldham is, perhaps I could enlighten you. We are a small village just on the outskirts of R.A.F. Marham and is mainly down to a farming community. We don't have large main roads in our village, instead they are two track roads with no pavements and people come out of their front door straight on to the road. The other roads are just single track. The thoughts of these massive lorries thundering along these roads to gain access to the A 134 as has been proposed is horrendous. The proposed route takes in A 134, A 10 and A 148. If you have ever been in the unfortunate position when leaving the A 134 to access the A 10 at the wrong time, you will know what a nightmare it is to get to the King's Lynn Hardwick roundabout where you can pick up the A 148, and that is before any extra lorries would be using it.
We also have a infant/junior school where the children are bussed in from local villages as well as those who are transported by family members and because of the width of our roads, if these lorries came through our village, sadly I think it will be an accident waiting to happen.
Shouldham Warren is the only local amenity we have here. People come from miles to ramble, cycle, jog, race or dog walk, all the things that are good for our health and wellbeing, something that keeps being drummed into us. We are always being urged to plant more trees to combat pollution and climate change, yet you want to completely destroy a beautiful forest hundreds of years old for the sake of a greedy Belgian company. They will do nothing for our local environment, all they are interested in is making money for themselves, by exporting most of the sand and after it has been made into glass is then imported by the U.K. After destroying our beloved Warren, Sibelco have no intentions of redeveloping the site going by their previous excavations, instead it will either be turned into one extremely large landfill site or flooded with water with all the hazardous materials left in and it will no doubt be turned into another Bawsey (another small village savaged by Sibelco) where various accidents and sadly two deaths have occurred.
Sibelco and Norfolk County Council will be the only ones to gain anything if this is allowed to go ahead, albeit Norfolk County Council will only get a fraction of the profit that is made, the majority will go to Sibelco. There will be no employment as far as local villagers are concerned, we will just have to suffer the consequences of the devastation of a lovely little village and the loss of a beautiful forest hundreds of years old.
I sincerely hope that you take the time to read my letter and you realise that instead of just signing the standard letter, you can appreciate that it is written from the heart,

Object

Representation ID: 98526

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Blazeby

Following your letter of the 13th. September 2019 and your request for my comments (My ref. 18049 & 18050) (your ref. M&WLPRP02019) Here are my thoughts and concerns regarding the Norfolk Minerals & Waste Local Plan: Preferred Options Consultation. The plan involves the turning of a 6 mile stretch of pastureland and woodland in the villages of Marham and Shouldham into a Silica Sand Quarry.
Marham village is mainly one long street of dwellings with very few areas of housing in small streets off the main road. We have the RAF Station to one side of the street and mostly farm/ pastureland to the other, this is where the private company Sibelco from Belgium wish to destroy our village and country way of life by excavating huge holes for the extraction of this sand. Having the RAF base so near us we have to cope with much noise from the new Lightening fighter planes and sometimes the strong smell of aviation fuel. To expect our village to be sandwiched between that and a huge noisy dusty quarry is I feel very unreasonable, it will turn our country way of life upside down. With the two elements mentioned the properties that we have all our working lives saved hard for will become greatly devalued as many people already are reluctant to live here being so near a RAF base.
I wrote to the RAF Station Commander mentioning that a few years ago the BBC warned us that due to atmospheric conditions and prevailing winds we would be having sand from the Sahara Desert blown over to the village, this happened covering our cars and window sills etc, in a very fine dust. If sand can blow here from that far away how much more will our lives be plagued with dust from a quarry on our doorstep and would this not be detrimental to the air intakes and instruments of the one hundred million pound cost of each of the new Lightening fighter planes that constantly fly above. I also considered that a vast yellow scar on the natural green landscape would point any terrorist in a small aircraft to exactly where our main air defence system and armoury could be located like a big yellow arrow saying drop your bombs here. I know with Sat Nav the air base could be found but as with the last war the government went to great lengths to disguise where our war planes were, even to constructing fake airfields and planes, so why now make our country's main defence area so obvious. If the terrorists can take out the enormous American towers anything is possible to those so inclined on destruction. If Sibelco are allowed to go ahead with the extraction of sand the huge craters will fill with water encouraging all sorts of birds to the area and this would cause disaster to any aircraft as bird strike is much feared by pilots.
The so called preferred site for this dreadful quarry supports much wildlife such as Roe deer, Muntjacs, foxes, hares and all the other British wildlife that make the countryside their home. There is so much flora and fauna that would be destroyed. On the plan the destruction of an ancient woodland, Shouldham Warren would be required. This is a much loved, used and enjoyed wood by so many villagers. At a time when the rain forest is being destroyed, the lungs of the planet, we should be planting thousands more trees to turn carbon monoxide into oxygen which is vital for the very existence of life on earth not destroying the trees we do have.
Some years ago the government at the time said that any building work for housing should only be allowed on brown field sites but of late travelling through our Norfolk villages more and more green fields are being sold off for development. So many of our roads are very narrow as they are the previous horse and cart tracks and only have certain passing places for vehicles. With more housing comes more people and more cars, our roads are dreadfully congested now without the extra heavy vehicles needed to transport sand from a quarry, the disruption to traffic flow will only exacerbate an already impossible situation on our roads.
I am very concerned about the air pollution a silica Sand quarry will cause, with fine dust in the air the particulates inhaled will cause much aggravation to our lungs and could be devastating to the elderly and especially to villagers who are already suffering from lung problems, there is no doubt in my mind that our health will deteriorate. Who would want to live in an area with so many hazards if the quarry is allowed to go ahead.
I am a lady in my seventies and have lived in Marham for 30 years and I am fighting to save our village and the countryside I love, not only for me for the years I have left, but for the younger people living here and for generations to come.
Please Planners don't allow this monstrous quarry to go ahead and destroy life as we know it in our village of Marham.
Thanking you in advance for your careful consideration of the issues I have raised.

Object

Representation ID: 98529

Received: 26/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Christine Bulmer

With reference to the above consultation I wish to comment as follows:-

* Archaeolgy this area is potentially very rich in finds from Pre- historic to Roman and Medieval and any further undiscovered sites would be destroyed permanently by the Silica Sand Extraction project. In close proximity are Pentney Priory Gatehouse and the unexplored Cistercian Nunnery in Marham.
* With regards to the local infrastructure the obvious access to this site would have to be from either the road connecting Wormegay to East Winch which already denoted as "Unsuitable for heavy traffic" or the Spring Lane connecting Shouldham to Marham which is only a single vehicle roadway and in even worse condition than the former. It could, I assume, be accessed from the A 134 which has recently become a very busy highway for heavy transport from the A 1122 and from the A10. Use of any of these locations will be detrimental to local residents. There are a lot of children using the local school at Shouldham, and this school generates a lot of cars and some buses bringing children in from other local villages. There is also a large transport depot at the junction of the A 134, Mitt Lane and Runcton Lane. Any additional traffic generation to the mullti-businesses carrying freight particularly along the A 134 is not recommended. This is without even considering the local residents that have to use these same roads use these roads to collect their weekly shopping from the local shopping centers of Downham Market and King's Lynn. I doubt whether this Community & Environental Service even bothered to find out that there are no shops in Shoudham, and other than the few minor shops in the RAF Marham Miitary establishment there are very limited number of shops at all in this rural area.
* The local Junior School in Shouldham that takes more pupils from the surrounding towns and villages other than from Shouldham, It also attracts a lot of local traffic; and on a regular basis and there are a lot of children milling about the Shouldham village center, together with the associated vehicles of the parents delivering and collecting their children.
* This proposal does not address concerns about the devastating impact this development will have on our community, or the effect of on the well-being of the local residents for decades to come. Nor does it address the dust and noise this will generate. Have you considered the way this will affect the health of the local residents when exposed to prolonged silca dust over an extended period ?
* This development will undoubtably reflect in the reduction in the house values of the village of Shouldham.
* t now appears the original letter refering to this development, dated 12 th August 2018, showed only the area desiganated SIL20, so it appears they now consider the residents of this area as stupid to notice that it now encompasses the remaining woodland of the warren.
* No assurances have been given that the site will not be abandoned which will leave this industrial site an industrial wasteland with no potential for either leisure or re-landscaping for any further use. It will leave the remains of this quarry, more than probably, a derelict hole in the ground.
* This site is unique to this area and these woodlands are irreplaceable. On a personal note I walk my dog twice a day in the Warren, as do many others. Some from Finchham, Downham Market, East Winch, Watlington and Marham, also others from further, and on holiday in this county,.
The Warren is used for events by cycling clubs from King' Lynn and Thetford that I know of. There are also the independent cyclists on many occasions.
The Riston Running hold regular events as well as the independent runners and joggers at varying times.
Riders are also use the Warren bringing their horse boxes from afar.
Birdwatchers from time to time, and I might add Heron, Kingfshers, Swans, Ducks,and Egrets are often seen by myself; not forgetting the Roe Dear, Monkjacks and Rabbits ofen seen on my morning walks. There are also Adders and Grasssakes to be found both of which are endangered species.

Object

Representation ID: 98535

Received: 14/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs Pamela R Ball

I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection,

Object

Representation ID: 98560

Received: 08/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Harrison-Jebb

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 98561

Received: 08/10/2019

Respondent: Jane Luckman

Please add my name to the list of those objecting to the plans to create two Silica Sites in West Norfolk.
There has been enough destruction of areas of natural beauty - (depriving wild-life and plant life of places to thrive) - already. We should be grateful for the fantastic county we are lucky enough to live in, and nurture it.

Object

Representation ID: 98563

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Betty Sole

Never cut the forest down again. I love it so much. I have made a den. Trees are good for the world

Object

Representation ID: 98564

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: Ms Suzanne Sole

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

I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
I am very worried about the proposed quarry so close to our village, that would destroy our much loved warren. It is widely recognised how beneficial to both physical and mental health woodlands can be. Our whole extended family use the warren very regularly for activities including walking, running, den building and blackberry picking. My 4 year old is a keen runner (recently being the youngest participant of the Shouldham Fun Run) and has started competing in cross-country races with Shouldham School monthly in the warren. She loves to practice running with her dad + has joined her grandad at orienteering events here. She also spends quality time with her dad den building and having den picnics here. (She was very upset when she heard the warren might be cut down and I enclose her own objection here in the envelope with mine). Therefore I object to the loss of the warren for our family + hundreds like ours due to its significant importance for physical health, its social importance + its import part of family life.
The warren is also a place that is vital to many local people for mental wellbeing. [Redacted text - personal data] I am well aware how important woodland and outdoor spaces like the warren are for keeping happy in modern hectic lives and maintaining good mental health.
I would also like to object to those plans on the grounds that I use this place for worship. Myself and my children have been to many 'forest churches' here and find it important to have this local, special place to use as part of practicing our religion.
Today, with everyone so much more aware of climate change and the countdown to irreversible damage being done to our planet, I find it extraordinary that our local government representatives will consider something as harmful as destroying huge areas of trees. When woodland can act as a 'carbon sink' we should be planting more not cutting any down. With all the discussion of the destruction of large swathes of the rainforest, I strongly feel the council should be helping us to do our part on a local scale by understanding their importance and protecting woodland such as the warren. Anything less seems to be hugely backward looking, especially when the resources it would provide are unsustainable. I ask NCC to catch up with Climate Change.
Next I must hugely object on the grounds of potential heath risks to the local community and especially to the children who would live so close to this quarry and Shouldham school children who would be learning + playing outside through the years right next to it. Can you guarantee that their health will not be affected by the dust and pollution from this massive quarry at the end of their road. And if not, why is this proposal even being considered?
I object to the increased risk this proposal would bring of road traffic collisions. The increased amount of traffic and in particular slow moving HGV's is likely to have a detrimental affect on local roads. I have already witnessed numerous occurrences of near misses from impatient drivers overtaking dangerously. I believe these occurrences would only increase with the increase in traffic.
I also object to the likely drop in house prices to our home, all Shouldham homes and those in nearby villages.
In conclusion I object to the proposed quarry plans on grounds of the loss of physical and mental health benefits to many, loss of an important place of worship for many, the detrimental impact it would have on the environment, the potential serious health risks to local people, especially the many children who live or attend school in Shouldham, the increase in traffic and the increased risk of accidents this would bring and finally the drop in local house prices.
With all these objections I can see absolutely no benefit to the local community, only a lot of stress and worry. How can NCC justify this?
Please record this as my objection,

Object

Representation ID: 98565

Received: 16/10/2019

Respondent: T Barnes

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren
I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection,

Object

Representation ID: 98566

Received: 21/10/2019

Respondent: Mr A Bartholomew

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren
I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.
Please record this as my objection,

Object

Representation ID: 98573

Received: 25/10/2019

Respondent: T Hazleton

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

I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Minerals and waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.

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