AOS J - land to the east of Tottenhill

Showing comments and forms 61 to 66 of 66

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98923

Received: 31/10/2019

Respondent: Miss Tracy Cole

Representation Summary:

I am writing, somewhat belatedly, to lodge my strong objection to to the proposed plans for quarrying in and around Tottenhill. As a resident of Tottenhill I believe the impact any further plans for quarrying in the immediate area will be detrimental to the village and surrounding areas for a number of reasons. My objections are as follows:

1. The area has already been extensively quarried, which still has a daily impact on the area. Further quarrying could destroy this small hamlet of Tottenhill completely - which is already split with the A10 running through it.
2. The road network in and around Tottenhill would not support any additional traffic - there has previously been a number of accidents at the two junctions on the A10, which is a major route into Kings Lynn.
3. There are very few unspoilt areas in Norfolk, without street lighting, like Tottenhill and this should be preserved as far as possible.
4. The watercourse could be affected by additional quarrying, as well as the quality of the water and water table. As a local resident, we regularly have issues with water - many times over the course of a year we lose the water pressure and at other times we lose water altogether.
5. Although Tottenhill now has access to the mains sewer some of the local residents still use septic tanks. Further quarrying could have an impact on the sewage system.
6. Any extracted material, in particular the silica sand, would firstly need to be transported to Leziate, treated and then, as it has historically, been transported mostly by road, to various parts of the country. It will not be used in Norfolk alone, if at all.
7. Tottenhil is an area of natural beauty with many interesting birds and other species. Further quarrying can only have a detrimental effect on the wildlife in the area.
Please listen to the local residents and look at other sites in Norfolk. We are only small and already over-quarried!

Full text:

I am writing, somewhat belatedly, to lodge my strong objection to to the proposed plans for quarrying in and around Tottenhill. As a resident of Tottenhill I believe the impact any further plans for quarrying in the immediate area will be detrimental to the village and surrounding areas for a number of reasons. My objections are as follows:

1. The area has already been extensively quarried, which still has a daily impact on the area. Further quarrying could destroy this small hamlet of Tottenhill completely - which is already split with the A10 running through it.
2. The road network in and around Tottenhill would not support any additional traffic - there has previously been a number of accidents at the two junctions on the A10, which is a major route into Kings Lynn.
3. There are very few unspoilt areas in Norfolk, without street lighting, like Tottenhill and this should be preserved as far as possible.
4. The watercourse could be affected by additional quarrying, as well as the quality of the water and water table. As a local resident, we regularly have issues with water - many times over the course of a year we lose the water pressure and at other times we lose water altogether.
5. Although Tottenhill now has access to the mains sewer some of the local residents still use septic tanks. Further quarrying could have an impact on the sewage system.
6. Any extracted material, in particular the silica sand, would firstly need to be transported to Leziate, treated and then, as it has historically, been transported mostly by road, to various parts of the country. It will not be used in Norfolk alone, if at all.
7. Tottenhil is an area of natural beauty with many interesting birds and other species. Further quarrying can only have a detrimental effect on the wildlife in the area.
Please listen to the local residents and look at other sites in Norfolk. We are only small and already over-quarried!

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98929

Received: 31/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Stewart Logan

Representation Summary:

I am writing to object to the proposed plans for quarrying in and around Tottenhill. As a resident of Tottenhill I believe the impact any further plans for quarrying in the immediate area will be detrimental to the area for a number of reasons. My objection is:

* The area has already been extensively quarried, which still has a daily impact on the area. Further quarrying could destroy this small hamlet of Tottenhill completely - which is already split with the A10 running through it.
* Tottenhill is an area of natural beauty with many interesting birds and other species of wildlife. Further quarrying can only have a detrimental effect on the wildlife in the area.
* The road network in and around Tottenhill would not support any additional traffic - there has previously been a number of accidents at the two junctions on the A10, which is a major route into Kings Lynn.
* The noise and dust from proposed quarrying would impact on the wellbeing of the local residents.
* There are very few unspoilt areas in Norfolk, without street lighting, like Tottenhill and this should be preserved as far as possible.
* The watercourse, quality of water and water table may be affected by further quarrying. As a local resident, we regularly have issues with water - many times over the course of a year we lose the water pressure and at other times we lose water altogether.
* Although Tottenhill now has access to the mains sewer some of the local residents still use septic tanks. Further quarrying could have an impact on the sewage system.
* Any extracted mineral, especially the silica sand, would firstly need to be transported to Leziate, where it would be treated and then transported, predominantly by road, to various parts of the country. It will not be used in Norfolk alone, if at all,
Please listen to the local residents and consider other sites in Norfolk where the impact of such quarrying would not have such an effect on the immediate community - we've had enough.

Full text:

I am writing to object to the proposed plans for quarrying in and around Tottenhill. As a resident of Tottenhill I believe the impact any further plans for quarrying in the immediate area will be detrimental to the area for a number of reasons. My objection is:

* The area has already been extensively quarried, which still has a daily impact on the area. Further quarrying could destroy this small hamlet of Tottenhill completely - which is already split with the A10 running through it.
* Tottenhill is an area of natural beauty with many interesting birds and other species of wildlife. Further quarrying can only have a detrimental effect on the wildlife in the area.
* The road network in and around Tottenhill would not support any additional traffic - there has previously been a number of accidents at the two junctions on the A10, which is a major route into Kings Lynn.
* The noise and dust from proposed quarrying would impact on the wellbeing of the local residents.
* There are very few unspoilt areas in Norfolk, without street lighting, like Tottenhill and this should be preserved as far as possible.
* The watercourse, quality of water and water table may be affected by further quarrying. As a local resident, we regularly have issues with water - many times over the course of a year we lose the water pressure and at other times we lose water altogether.
* Although Tottenhill now has access to the mains sewer some of the local residents still use septic tanks. Further quarrying could have an impact on the sewage system.
* Any extracted mineral, especially the silica sand, would firstly need to be transported to Leziate, where it would be treated and then transported, predominantly by road, to various parts of the country. It will not be used in Norfolk alone, if at all,
Please listen to the local residents and consider other sites in Norfolk where the impact of such quarrying would not have such an effect on the immediate community - we've had enough.

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 99002

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk

Representation Summary:

The AoS are the same as previously expressed in the Initial Consultation document. Silica sand is a nationally important industrial mineral, and as such, the County Council must make adequate provision for its extraction. However they are not able to find suitable sites for the quantity of sand required, especially having dropped a site at Shouldham / Marham. The AoS are large and the expectation is that a suitable location could be found within one of the areas. Without detailed further information or operator preferences, it is not possible to pinpoint a site and therefore assess the localised impacts. Whilst this may be unsatisfactory for local communities who fear the consequences of extraction, it does give a positive indication that the County Council is safeguarding land and narrowing down suitable sites. It would be unrealistic to seek to have no areas of search at all, and the Plan could be found 'unsound', which would not be of benefit to the area.

Full text:

Original response received 30.10 2019
Revised response received 18.12.2019

3. Implications for the Borough from sand and gravel and silica sand policies / areas
3.1 Tottenhill (Site 206 - West of Lynn Road) This is an extension of existing works. The Tottenhill sites would be worked sequentially to mitigate any cumulative impacts. Potentially acceptable subject to the requirements in the policy.

3.2 A site at East Winch (Site MIN06 Mill Drove, Middleton) is allocated for carstone extraction. Potentially acceptable subject to the requirements in the policy.

3.3 Silica sand - AoS's (E, F, J and I) and SIL01. The County Council concludes that Site SIL01 is suitable to allocate for silica sand extraction. Development will be subject to compliance with the relevant Minerals and Waste Local Plan Policies and Specific Site Allocation Policy SIL01. There are reasonable safeguards for the locality.

3.4 The AoS are the same as previously expressed in the Initial Consultation document. Silica sand is a nationally important industrial mineral, and as such, the County Council must make adequate provision for its extraction. However they are not able to find suitable sites for the quantity of sand required, especially having dropped a site at Shouldham / Marham. The AoS are large and the expectation is that a suitable location could be found within one of the areas. Without detailed further information or operator preferences, it is not possible to pinpoint a site and therefore assess the localised impacts. Whilst this may be unsatisfactory for local communities who fear the consequences of extraction, it does give a positive indication that the County Council is safeguarding land and narrowing down suitable sites. It would be unrealistic to seek to have no areas of search at all, and the Plan could be found 'unsound', which would not be of benefit to the area.

Policy MP13 Silica Sand Area of Search (AoS E - Shouldham Warren area) and Policy MP2 - Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction (including reference to Silica Sand Areas of Search, and buffer zones (clause e))
3.5 Policy MP13 provides a criterion based approach to potential development in Areas of Search, including Area E. The expectation is that various assessments about related impacts will be provided in support of any applications, covering matters such as archaeology, landscape etc. Heavy reliance is placed on the safeguards from supporting studies to achieve acceptable development.
The recent decision by Norfolk County Council (in respect of it's Environmental Policy - County Council 25 November) to support the planting of some 1 million trees over the next 5 years to mitigate for the effects of climate change suggests a significant policy shift in the important role that trees play in County Council operations. It is clear that much more attention needs to be given the retention of existing tree cover in any mineral extraction situation. Shouldham Warren is an extensive area of tree cover, with additional recreation opportunities. An elevated status needs to be given to this in the planning balance as to whether an Area of Search should be designated at Shouldham, the Borough Council view is that the County Council should remove the AoS for this reason.
Additionally, Policy MP2 provides a degree of protection for areas with defined characteristics. Clause a. refers to 'ancient' woodland. In view of the County Council decision referred to above, it would be appropriate to delete the word 'ancient', leaving an enhanced level of protection to woodland generally.
Conclusion on AoS E (Shouldham) - Taking into account the two proposed amendments to policies affecting the potential for extraction at Shouldham, and the significant additional constraints now evident, the AoS should be removed.
MP2 Clause e) - Whilst the hydrological catchment around Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog, is specifically mentioned in Policy MP2e for exclusion, the complex hydrology and geology of these extremely sensitive sites is not fully understood. These two habitats have been recognised through the Ramsar, SAC and SSSI designations as having protected status. The introduction of wider 1.5km buffer zones would better mitigate any risk.

3.6 Policy MP7 (relating to restoration and aftercare) suggests that preference will be given to enhancing biodiversity, green infrastructure, and high quality local landscapes. This approach is supported. Whilst not necessarily appropriate in all circumstances, tree planting on restored sites would be a useful additional boost to mitigate for climate change. It is proposed that an additional clause is added to this effect as a fifth bullet point in paragraph four to the policy.

4. Implications for the Borough from the NCC approach to proposed waste and other policies on 'energy minerals'.

4.1 NCC have reviewed the policies in the current plans and as with Minerals moved them on to an end date of 2036. One particular item is relevant to West Norfolk. This is the overall locational strategy for waste management facilities.
4.2 Main points:
* From Policy WP2 in the Preferred Options it would seem possible to locate waste management facilities away from the broad location that generated the waste. Thus necessitating potentially significant transport movements, and possibly generating resentment from recipient communities.
* Whilst not necessarily inappropriate for all types of waste where specialist facilities are needed, extremely careful thought should be given to general waste or significant quantities requiring movement.
* A better approach would seem to be one where the policy encouraged waste to be dealt with as near to the generating source as possible.
* It is suggested our original comments are still appropriate to make.
4.3 Incineration - For the avoidance of doubt, it would be helpful if the County Council could add text to explain the position whereby the County Council will not seek to procure incinerators within Norfolk.
The position of the Borough Council on incineration is clear from previous involvement in planning inquiries. A clear statement on the matter from the County Council in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan would avoid any uncertainty for residents.

4.4 Fracking - Reference could be made to latest Government announcements about the potential restrictions / banning on this subject.

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 99022

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk

Representation Summary:

J.1 Amenity
The site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 which can affect the health and amenity of local residents.
The nearest residential property is approximately 250 metres from the AOS boundary and the settlement of Tottenhill is less than 300 metres from the boundary of the AOS. We would welcome the submission of noise and dust assessments, including mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity or health impacts, with any planning application.
It must be ensured that the preparation or use of the site will not result in an exceedance of the national air quality objectives, or an AQMA may need to be declared.

J.2/J.3 Highway Access
Access from AOS J could be via the southern track onto the A134. A dedicated access could also be created to the A134, or the A10 to the west. Such routes to the main roads should consider the proximity of residential receptors and provide appropriate mitigation from noise and dust. Sand extracted would be taken to the processing plant at Leziate, access to which would be an off-road route turning right off the B1145 before Bawsey and utilising the existing track and/or conveyor route through the existing mineral workings at Mintlyn to access Station Road and the processing plant south of Brow of the Hill. Utilising an off-road haul route would avoid lorries accessing the processing plant via Brow of the Hill, Fair Green or Middleton and would therefore mitigate amenity impacts, so this is something we would welcome, assuming there would be no negative impact on residents from the off-road route.
Additionally we welcome the requirements listed within Policy MP13 that a transport assessment is submitted along with a comprehensive phased working scheme to mitigate cumulative emissions from the extraction of AOS E, AOS F, AOS I, and AOS J.

J.13 Flood Risk
9% of AOS J is at low risk of flooding from surface water, 4% is at medium risk and 1% is at high risk of flooding from surface water. There is an area of surface water pooling in a 1 in 30-year rainfall event, which increase in size in a 1 in 100-year rainfall event and a 1 in 1000-year rainfall event. There is also a surface water flow path through the AOS in a 1 in 1000-year rainfall event. We would welcome the submission of a surface water drainage scheme with any planning application

J.14 Hydrogeology
Proposed extraction below the water table and/or dewatering should be accompanied by a hydrogeological risk assessment to identify potential risks and appropriate mitigation

J.15 Water Framework Directive
Mineral extracted from AOS F likely to be transported by road to the existing processing plant at Leziate, will have to cross the Polver Drain on the A10 at Setchey. Appropriate mitigation should be put in place to ensure that no unacceptable impacts to the drain or the river occur, including from silt ingress and fugitive dust emissions. A dust assessment would also be required at the planning application stage.

Full text:


Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019

Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.

Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.

Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.

Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.

Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.

[see attached table for comments on individual sites]

Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019

Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework

Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.

Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.

Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.

[see attached table for comments on individual sites]

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 99075

Received: 02/10/2019

Respondent: Mr David Long

Representation Summary:

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren and AOS J
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, and also AOS J.
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,

Full text:

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren and AOS J
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, and AOS J.
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

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 99076

Received: 02/10/2019

Respondent: Julienne Long

Representation Summary:

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren and AOS J
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 and also AOS J.
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,

Full text:

Objection to AOS E - Land Between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren and AOS J
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 and AOS J.
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,