Preferred Options consultation document
Search representations
Results for Marham Parish Council search
New searchObject
Preferred Options consultation document
AOS E - land to the north of Shouldham
Representation ID: 94273
Received: 16/10/2019
Respondent: Marham Parish Council
Marham Parish Council objects to the area of search (AOS E) that lies within or close to the Parish boundary, and its overlapping area with the remainder of SIL 02. It also objects for the following reasons:
Marham village has had a strong association with RAF Marham for many decades. While the closeness of the airfield brings the type of noise that most villages in the UK do not hear, the residents understand the strategic significance RAF Marham has played and continues to play in the defence of the UK and employment in the Borough (it is the largest front-line RAF base in the UK and supplies 1 in 12 jobs in the Borough and an estimated £130 million to the local economy). Every resident in Marham made a choice to live in the village with the knowledge of the noise the airbase produced. None of them chose to live and raise families in the village to be close to a quarry that will last for many decades. The cumulative effect of the jet noise to one side of the village, combined with the potential of a silica sand quarry on the other is not a quality of life position that Norfolk County Council could think is acceptable to visit upon the residents.
A quarry would bring an increased risk of birdstrikes and the Council agrees with the MOD DIO objection in the Initial Consultation phase. The initial plan for SIL 02 was to be a wet dredge; the area of AOS E that was previously known as SIL 02 has a high-water table; no dewatering licence will be granted; the remainder of AOS E in most part also has a high-water table and presumably would have to be wet dredged. This is a high-risk strategy for a catastrophic event; it would be a human disaster if an F-35 Lightning II were to be brought down on or near to the village due to a terminal failure of its engine caused by a bird attracted to a wet quarry working and/or restoration in the village.
The toll of such an occurrence on the spirit of the community and its individual inhabitants is immeasurable. Add to that the tangible concerns that can be measured - the cost to the taxpayer for initial disaster, the rebuilding, NHS treatment, and replacing aircraft - an increase in the risk of a birdstrike in the village is not acceptable as 80% of bird strikes occur at take off and landing.
The Borough Council is reviewing its own Local Plan which has, as a main highlight, Marham village as one of two Growth Key Rural Centres to support families and employees at RAF Marham through building at least 75 houses over two sites. RAF Marham is expected to grow from a community of 8000 to 10000 over the coming years.
The Council cannot understand how the Borough Council plan for housing, and the County Council plan for quarrying, could ever be compatible.
The proposed area of search close to the village will have no beneficial effect on the local economy other than to drive people out (cumulative effect of the airbase and the quarry) to find alternative places to live and raise a family. In turn, this will reduce spending within the local businesses, causing those to close and leave too.
And then there is the matter of at least 75 new houses (Local Plan) that may not be bought and so remain empty.
Any quarrying would remove the natural spaces that are Shouldham Warren and Marham Fen, used daily by hundreds of people, locals and tourists alike. At a time when the problems of obesity and mental health are an almost daily news story and problems that can be reduced through outdoor exercise, there is a high incidence of depression within the communities and it is well documented that stress, depression and anxiety are relieved by being in the great outdoors.
It does not make any sense to consider AOS E as an area to quarry silica sand that could be sourced another way - it could be imported. The country is not self-sufficient in many commodities in the UK and continues to import goods, especially food stuffs, at extortionate cost, so why the rush to be self sufficient in glass and therefore sand? This country could also recycle its glass better to reduce the raw materials required and have to quarry them from the landscapes in vast quantities.
The irrevocable changes to the rich historic landscape and character of the local area surrounding the many Scheduled Monuments and Heritage Assets that any quarrying would cause in this area would be an act of vandalism.
It is noted that from Norfolk County Council's own Historic Environmental Impact Assessment (HEIA), such is the significance of Pentney Priory Gatehouse, that the recommendation in the report is to exclude an area approximately 2km to the East of the monument to lessen the risk of visual intrusion in its setting and historical context. It is disappointing that the HEIA only saw fit to exclude an area to the south of Pentney Priory Gatehouse out to only approximately 1km, despite the monument being clearly visible from Spring Lane over 2km away and looking directly over the former area of SIL 02, now part of AOS E overlap.
The Council objects to this arbitrary 1km and requests that at least 2km is imposed to the South of Pentney Priory Gatehouse to afford the same view and distance in both directions.
There are no sensible, logical or humane arguments in favour of silica sand quarrying in the area when compared with the points above. Marham Parish Council objects to the proposal to quarry silica sand in AOS E and its overlapping area with SIL 02.
Marham Parish Council objects to the area of search (AOS E) that lies within or close to the Parish boundary, and its overlapping area with the remainder of SIL 02. It also objects for the following reasons:
Marham village has had a strong association with RAF Marham for many decades. While the closeness of the airfield brings the type of noise that most villages in the UK do not hear, the residents understand the strategic significance RAF Marham has played and continues to play in the defence of the UK and employment in the Borough (it is the largest front-line RAF base in the UK and supplies 1 in 12 jobs in the Borough and an estimated £130 million to the local economy). Every resident in Marham made a choice to live in the village with the knowledge of the noise the airbase produced. None of them chose to live and raise families in the village to be close to a quarry that will last for many decades. The cumulative effect of the jet noise to one side of the village, combined with the potential of a silica sand quarry on the other is not a quality of life position that Norfolk County Council could think is acceptable to visit upon the residents.
A quarry would bring an increased risk of birdstrikes and the Council agrees with the MOD DIO objection in the Initial Consultation phase. The initial plan for SIL 02 was to be a wet dredge; the area of AOS E that was previously known as SIL 02 has a high-water table; no dewatering licence will be granted; the remainder of AOS E in most part also has a high-water table and presumably would have to be wet dredged. This is a high-risk strategy for a catastrophic event; it would be a human disaster if an F-35 Lightning II were to be brought down on or near to the village due to a terminal failure of its engine caused by a bird attracted to a wet quarry working and/or restoration in the village.
The toll of such an occurrence on the spirit of the community and its individual inhabitants is immeasurable. Add to that the tangible concerns that can be measured - the cost to the taxpayer for initial disaster, the rebuilding, NHS treatment, and replacing aircraft - an increase in the risk of a birdstrike in the village is not acceptable as 80% of bird strikes occur at take off and landing.
The Borough Council is reviewing its own Local Plan which has, as a main highlight, Marham village as one of two Growth Key Rural Centres to support families and employees at RAF Marham through building at least 75 houses over two sites. RAF Marham is expected to grow from a community of 8000 to 10000 over the coming years.
The Council cannot understand how the Borough Council plan for housing, and the County Council plan for quarrying, could ever be compatible.
The proposed area of search close to the village will have no beneficial effect on the local economy other than to drive people out (cumulative effect of the airbase and the quarry) to find alternative places to live and raise a family. In turn, this will reduce spending within the local businesses, causing those to close and leave too.
And then there is the matter of at least 75 new houses (Local Plan) that may not be bought and so remain empty.
Any quarrying would remove the natural spaces that are Shouldham Warren and Marham Fen, used daily by hundreds of people, locals and tourists alike. At a time when the problems of obesity and mental health are an almost daily news story and problems that can be reduced through outdoor exercise, there is a high incidence of depression within the communities and it is well documented that stress, depression and anxiety are relieved by being in the great outdoors.
It does not make any sense to consider AOS E as an area to quarry silica sand that could be sourced another way - it could be imported. The country is not self-sufficient in many commodities in the UK and continues to import goods, especially food stuffs, at extortionate cost, so why the rush to be self sufficient in glass and therefore sand? This country could also recycle its glass better to reduce the raw materials required and have to quarry them from the landscapes in vast quantities.
The irrevocable changes to the rich historic landscape and character of the local area surrounding the many Scheduled Monuments and Heritage Assets that any quarrying would cause in this area would be an act of vandalism.
It is noted that from Norfolk County Council's own Historic Environmental Impact Assessment (HEIA), such is the significance of Pentney Priory Gatehouse, that the recommendation in the report is to exclude an area approximately 2km to the East of the monument to lessen the risk of visual intrusion in its setting and historical context. It is disappointing that the HEIA only saw fit to exclude an area to the south of Pentney Priory Gatehouse out to only approximately 1km, despite the monument being clearly visible from Spring Lane over 2km away and looking directly over the former area of SIL 02, now part of AOS E overlap.
The Council objects to this arbitrary 1km and requests that at least 2km is imposed to the South of Pentney Priory Gatehouse to afford the same view and distance in both directions.
There are no sensible, logical or humane arguments in favour of silica sand quarrying in the area when compared with the points above. Marham Parish Council objects to the proposal to quarry silica sand in AOS E and its overlapping area with SIL 02.
Object
Preferred Options consultation document
SIL02 - land at Shouldham and Marham
Representation ID: 94274
Received: 16/10/2019
Respondent: Marham Parish Council
Marham Parish Council objects to the area of search (AOS E) that lies within or close to the Parish boundary, and its overlapping area with the remainder of SIL 02. It also objects for the following reasons:
Marham village has had a strong association with RAF Marham for many decades. While the closeness of the airfield brings the type of noise that most villages in the UK do not hear, the residents understand the strategic significance RAF Marham has played and continues to play in the defence of the UK and employment in the Borough (it is the largest front-line RAF base in the UK and supplies 1 in 12 jobs in the Borough and an estimated £130 million to the local economy). Every resident in Marham made a choice to live in the village with the knowledge of the noise the airbase produced. None of them chose to live and raise families in the village to be close to a quarry that will last for many decades. The cumulative effect of the jet noise to one side of the village, combined with the potential of a silica sand quarry on the other is not a quality of life position that Norfolk County Council could think is acceptable to visit upon the residents.
A quarry would bring an increased risk of birdstrikes and the Council agrees with the MOD DIO objection in the Initial Consultation phase. The initial plan for SIL 02 was to be a wet dredge; the area of AOS E that was previously known as SIL 02 has a high-water table; no dewatering licence will be granted; the remainder of AOS E in most part also has a high-water table and presumably would have to be wet dredged. This is a high-risk strategy for a catastrophic event; it would be a human disaster if an F-35 Lightning II were to be brought down on or near to the village due to a terminal failure of its engine caused by a bird attracted to a wet quarry working and/or restoration in the village.
The toll of such an occurrence on the spirit of the community and its individual inhabitants is immeasurable. Add to that the tangible concerns that can be measured - the cost to the taxpayer for initial disaster, the rebuilding, NHS treatment, and replacing aircraft - an increase in the risk of a birdstrike in the village is not acceptable as 80% of bird strikes occur at take off and landing.
The Borough Council is reviewing its own Local Plan which has, as a main highlight, Marham village as one of two Growth Key Rural Centres to support families and employees at RAF Marham through building at least 75 houses over two sites. RAF Marham is expected to grow from a community of 8000 to 10000 over the coming years.
The Council cannot understand how the Borough Council plan for housing, and the County Council plan for quarrying, could ever be compatible.
The proposed area of search close to the village will have no beneficial effect on the local economy other than to drive people out (cumulative effect of the airbase and the quarry) to find alternative places to live and raise a family. In turn, this will reduce spending within the local businesses, causing those to close and leave too.
And then there is the matter of at least 75 new houses (Local Plan) that may not be bought and so remain empty.
Any quarrying would remove the natural spaces that are Shouldham Warren and Marham Fen, used daily by hundreds of people, locals and tourists alike. At a time when the problems of obesity and mental health are an almost daily news story and problems that can be reduced through outdoor exercise, there is a high incidence of depression within the communities and it is well documented that stress, depression and anxiety are relieved by being in the great outdoors.
It does not make any sense to consider AOS E as an area to quarry silica sand that could be sourced another way - it could be imported. The country is not self-sufficient in many commodities in the UK and continues to import goods, especially food stuffs, at extortionate cost, so why the rush to be self sufficient in glass and therefore sand? This country could also recycle its glass better to reduce the raw materials required and have to quarry them from the landscapes in vast quantities.
The irrevocable changes to the rich historic landscape and character of the local area surrounding the many Scheduled Monuments and Heritage Assets that any quarrying would cause in this area would be an act of vandalism.
It is noted that from Norfolk County Council's own Historic Environmental Impact Assessment (HEIA), such is the significance of Pentney Priory Gatehouse, that the recommendation in the report is to exclude an area approximately 2km to the East of the monument to lessen the risk of visual intrusion in its setting and historical context. It is disappointing that the HEIA only saw fit to exclude an area to the south of Pentney Priory Gatehouse out to only approximately 1km, despite the monument being clearly visible from Spring Lane over 2km away and looking directly over the former area of SIL 02, now part of AOS E overlap.
The Council objects to this arbitrary 1km and requests that at least 2km is imposed to the South of Pentney Priory Gatehouse to afford the same view and distance in both directions.
There are no sensible, logical or humane arguments in favour of silica sand quarrying in the area when compared with the points above. Marham Parish Council objects to the proposal to quarry silica sand in AOS E and its overlapping area with SIL 02.
Marham Parish Council objects to the area of search (AOS E) that lies within or close to the Parish boundary, and its overlapping area with the remainder of SIL 02. It also objects for the following reasons:
Marham village has had a strong association with RAF Marham for many decades. While the closeness of the airfield brings the type of noise that most villages in the UK do not hear, the residents understand the strategic significance RAF Marham has played and continues to play in the defence of the UK and employment in the Borough (it is the largest front-line RAF base in the UK and supplies 1 in 12 jobs in the Borough and an estimated £130 million to the local economy). Every resident in Marham made a choice to live in the village with the knowledge of the noise the airbase produced. None of them chose to live and raise families in the village to be close to a quarry that will last for many decades. The cumulative effect of the jet noise to one side of the village, combined with the potential of a silica sand quarry on the other is not a quality of life position that Norfolk County Council could think is acceptable to visit upon the residents.
A quarry would bring an increased risk of birdstrikes and the Council agrees with the MOD DIO objection in the Initial Consultation phase. The initial plan for SIL 02 was to be a wet dredge; the area of AOS E that was previously known as SIL 02 has a high-water table; no dewatering licence will be granted; the remainder of AOS E in most part also has a high-water table and presumably would have to be wet dredged. This is a high-risk strategy for a catastrophic event; it would be a human disaster if an F-35 Lightning II were to be brought down on or near to the village due to a terminal failure of its engine caused by a bird attracted to a wet quarry working and/or restoration in the village.
The toll of such an occurrence on the spirit of the community and its individual inhabitants is immeasurable. Add to that the tangible concerns that can be measured - the cost to the taxpayer for initial disaster, the rebuilding, NHS treatment, and replacing aircraft - an increase in the risk of a birdstrike in the village is not acceptable as 80% of bird strikes occur at take off and landing.
The Borough Council is reviewing its own Local Plan which has, as a main highlight, Marham village as one of two Growth Key Rural Centres to support families and employees at RAF Marham through building at least 75 houses over two sites. RAF Marham is expected to grow from a community of 8000 to 10000 over the coming years.
The Council cannot understand how the Borough Council plan for housing, and the County Council plan for quarrying, could ever be compatible.
The proposed area of search close to the village will have no beneficial effect on the local economy other than to drive people out (cumulative effect of the airbase and the quarry) to find alternative places to live and raise a family. In turn, this will reduce spending within the local businesses, causing those to close and leave too.
And then there is the matter of at least 75 new houses (Local Plan) that may not be bought and so remain empty.
Any quarrying would remove the natural spaces that are Shouldham Warren and Marham Fen, used daily by hundreds of people, locals and tourists alike. At a time when the problems of obesity and mental health are an almost daily news story and problems that can be reduced through outdoor exercise, there is a high incidence of depression within the communities and it is well documented that stress, depression and anxiety are relieved by being in the great outdoors.
It does not make any sense to consider AOS E as an area to quarry silica sand that could be sourced another way - it could be imported. The country is not self-sufficient in many commodities in the UK and continues to import goods, especially food stuffs, at extortionate cost, so why the rush to be self sufficient in glass and therefore sand? This country could also recycle its glass better to reduce the raw materials required and have to quarry them from the landscapes in vast quantities.
The irrevocable changes to the rich historic landscape and character of the local area surrounding the many Scheduled Monuments and Heritage Assets that any quarrying would cause in this area would be an act of vandalism.
It is noted that from Norfolk County Council's own Historic Environmental Impact Assessment (HEIA), such is the significance of Pentney Priory Gatehouse, that the recommendation in the report is to exclude an area approximately 2km to the East of the monument to lessen the risk of visual intrusion in its setting and historical context. It is disappointing that the HEIA only saw fit to exclude an area to the south of Pentney Priory Gatehouse out to only approximately 1km, despite the monument being clearly visible from Spring Lane over 2km away and looking directly over the former area of SIL 02, now part of AOS E overlap.
The Council objects to this arbitrary 1km and requests that at least 2km is imposed to the South of Pentney Priory Gatehouse to afford the same view and distance in both directions.
There are no sensible, logical or humane arguments in favour of silica sand quarrying in the area when compared with the points above. Marham Parish Council objects to the proposal to quarry silica sand in AOS E and its overlapping area with SIL 02.
