ERASE

New webmaster required for ERASE blog

2011-11-02T18:10:00.002Z

This will be our final post on the ERASE blog. If you want to volunteer to keep this site up to date then please get in touch -Thank you

mrgrimsdale@hotmail.com

For you information: this link below is for the Draft National Planning Policy Network

NB consultations closed for this on 17th October 2011.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/draftframework

RCS exposure & Incinerator health risk study

2011-07-06T13:34:00.004+01:00

Please see our web site http://www.eraseorg.blogspot.com/ for all the health related info (including studies and peer reviewed articles into the dangers to residents living near to quarry extraction sites). This shows there to be a strong body of evidence for a causal relationship between exposure to crystalline silica and disease

As many of you will know, We have a smaller core group of members amongst which are several doctors. If anyone can make contact with them to join as well please.

You may recall recently that a group of GPs and hospital Doctors wrote a joint letter of objection regarding the health concerns over the proposed incinerator.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/incinerator_health_risk_study_welcomed_by_king_s_lynn_campaigners_1_880848

This has now lead to a proper investigation being carried out into PM2.5s, and danger to residents from PM2.5 particles by Imperial College and will inform the Health Protection Agency who advise central government, This is exactly the same problem we have with our MINs (various) with respirable crystalline silica (RCS ) - also breaking down into PM10s and more dangerously PM 2.5s.

The latest HSE survey found "

"When a new quarry is opened, or an existing one extended, access usually has to be gained to

the strata of economic interest. Any topsoil and subsoil and overlying strata are removed and

either stockpiled for use during remediation, used for this purpose immediately or removed

from the site. All this material is likely to contain a greater or lesser proportion of quartz

depending on its nature or derivation. Disturbance, especially in dry weather, can lead to RCS

exposure, especially from dust re-suspended by vehicle wheels from contaminated haulage

routes. This RCS generation mechanism exists throughout most stages of production in most

quarries".

If you as members of the medical profession would be kind enough to go to our website and read all the relevant documentation you willl see that whilst the quarry employees are protected by HSE legislation we, the residents, are not. A joint letter from you all objecting to the continued quarrying of silica sand without a full and proper survey and investigation (from a completely indepedent, objective and suitably qualified body such as Imperial or similar ) into its health implications to residents would be of huge value not only locally but nationally.
Please dont forget our meeting (joint with Parish Council) Wednesday 13th July Leziate village hall starts 6.30, please be there and seated for 6.15pm . Matti - meeting tonight 5/7 at east Winch Village hall at 7pm with regard to MIN39, some of you may also wish to attend this as well as it effects Glosthorpe manor residents and those along that part of Church Lane, Ashwicken.
Many thanks everyone
Karan

Silicosis Risk Graph

2011-06-24T17:00:00.003+01:00

http://www.superquarry.org.au/category/issues/

Here's a quick reminder of what silica dust can do once it's inside your body...
http://www.amicustheunion.org/pdf/SilicaPoster.pdf

Top chains are urged to ban sandblasted jeans

2011-06-24T16:54:00.002+01:00

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Top-chains-urged-ban-tele-3797296291.html?x=0

Sarah Butler, 6:44, Sunday 20 March 2011

Asda (NYSE: WMT - news) , Diesel, Matalan and Primark are among a group of companies being criticised for selling jeans made using sandblasting, which can cause illness or even death.
The pressure group, Labour Behind the Label, said these companies continue to use sandblasting to give denim a "worn" look, despite the danger that silica dust from the sand can get into workers' lungs. British companies including New Look and Marks & Spencer (Dusseldorf: MA6.DU - news) also say they have banned the process. Levi's and H&M (Stockholm: HMB.ST - news) stopped all use in December
"Dead workers aren't fashionable," said Sam Maher, co-author of Labour Behind the Label's Killer Jeans report, which will be published on Monday.
"The trend for killer jeans must be phased out by companies and rejected by consumers with immediate effect." It is also calling on retailers and brands to compensate workers who have been made ill by operating sandblasting machines in the past.
Matalan told The Telegraph that it currently uses sandblasting on some denim products. It said safety standards were constantly under review and it would "take action if necessary to protect the welfare of our suppliers' employees".
Asda said it was in the process of phasing out sandblasted products. "It's our intention that there will be none on sale in our stores by the end of this year," a spokesman said. Diesel said it would stop using sandblasting on its clothing from early next year and Next (Xetra: 779551 - news) said it had stopped all new orders. Both said suppliers were required to meet safety standards. Primark said it had halted sandblasting at more than half of its previous suppliers and expected to be out of 90 per cent by the end of the year.
Primark suggested some rivals had been less than honest in their promises. A spokesman said: "A ban is only meaningful when capable of being enforced and carefully monitored. Too often companies impose bans without any real attempt to implement them properly."
But a spokesman for international clothing workers' union ITGLWF said: "In the space of a year workers could contract silicosis. We need to just stop this."

MIN39 Back on the Council's agenda.

2011-06-19T13:34:00.012+01:00

(!) Please Note: This message from Alistair Beales (Borough Council):

"It is not my understanding that Sibelco have decided not to pursue MIN42 – their submissions support that allocation in the 2011 consultation and seek to change the procedure to favour all their ambitions. Far from allaying my concerns about the issues you mention, it has very much heightened them".

The council's latest document can be downloaded by clicking on the above heading or at the link below:

http://documents.dareiidream.co.uk/mwdf.pdf

MIN40 is discussed in more detail at

http://saveeastwinch.blogspot.com

Hello Everyone

Well it's been some while since we have all had to make contact again but like me, I expect (or hope) that you will have received the latest round of 'consultation' information on MIN42 from NCC.

If you did object first time round and have not had their recent letter dates 13 June, then please ring Caroline Jeffery on 01603 222193 and ask for it to be sent to you please and let them know you are unhappy that you have not been updated.

We have until the 15th of August to respond and to lodge our objections.

Now, whilst MIN 42 in its entirety has been removed (for the time being at least) from this round of the equation, I have worked my way through the cumbersome documentation on their website and MIN 42 as we all suspected is by far permanently out of the woods yet - indeed if they have their way there will be no woods left!

I will be directing you to look at various websites and will also be aiming to have our website updated.

Like many of you will have in the past couple of years, I have now changed email addresses and can be contacted on karanmckerrowdean@titanmail.org.uk

If you have moved and no longer live in the area but still receive this email, then please let me know and perhaps I can add the new owner's details to my email details.

Similarly, if your circumstances have changed or some of you have moved on then I apologise for this intrusion but please reply and update me.

If you know your neighbours do not have email or have changed theirs, then please run off a copy of this email and let as many people know as possible. I am trying to avoid having to do a mail drop at this moment in time if we can.

I would like to direct you to http://norfolk.jdi-consult.net/ldf/

scroll down until you come to

Minerals Site Allocations: Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) Consultation (consultation ended: 11/12/2009)

click on this

scroll down again until you find firstly MIN 42 then MIN113 which is underneath it and click on that as well.

Here you will see

that the original MIN 42 has now been broken up. This is due to the objection of the landowner Mr Timothy Flux who owns the 2 chunks which have been removed in other words the large field which was in at the bottom right south east corner ( old Golf Course Hill) and large section in the middle above Leziate Heath (now referred to as MIN113), thus cutting the original MIN42 in half.

You will see all their reasoning based on landscape, ecology, highways and accessibility, amenities, water, geodiversity and all other comments they have made.

However, importantly please note:

They seem to be maintaining that if they were to further exclude the north east chunk which is more' sensitive', this would still leave two large and viable areas namely along Leziate Drove and North of Chilver House lane.

Please also see:

http://norfolk.jdi-consult.net/ldf/readdoc.php?docid=11&chapter=7&docelemid=d1126#d1126

Minerals Site Allocations: Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) Consultation
scroll down to 7.5 MINs 42 and 113
Here you will see that they see this as "a very good opportunity to create and link up further large areas of heathland" replacing the currently ecology.

Well I don't jnow about you but I chose to live amongst arable, undulating hills and fields not huge swathes of nothing but Heathlands, please tell them this.

The Gaywood Valley and rolling hill coming down from the Knights Hill roundabout is one of the few wooded hills in this part of Norfolk and the view is majestic.

Their plan is still (at some stage) to cut through the valley, destroying the woodlands and replacing it with heath.

They are trying currently to figure out access routes to the area north of Chilver House Lane (and South of Cliffe-en-Howe).
They are similarly trying to say that with improvements to the B1145 and Leziate Drove junction they would be able to access the area to the East adjacent to and south of the Phghtle and have also marked the drive/lane with black circles next to MIN113 and suggesting a continuation route marked with black triangles up The Brow of the Hill back to their processing plant.

Firstly, we have seen the effect that Mr Flux's objection had in removing his land from the equation.

The area they still propose to mine North of Chilver House Lane and South of Cliffe-en-Howe must belong to someone. It clearly runs through several people's land. I would like those people to make themselves known to me please and to voice your concerns very loudly with an outright objection to NCC demanding the removal of your land. Even if only 1 or 2 of you did this, this would break up the land even further and make access even more difficult.

If you know who currently owns any of this land then please let me know (including MIN113 where the horses are kept along gayton Road).

Further, all the people living along Chilver House Lane, Cliffe en Howe and Leziate Drove and along Gayton Road will be effected either by traffic and HGVs, noise, air pollution (PCBs which as mentioned in relation to the recent incinerator objections) are cancer carrying particles very well known in the silica extraction and processing industry (silicosis) e.g. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis36.pdf. The dangers to people living nearby to these sites are well documented and noted under H&SE and COSHE regulations.

It is absolutely vital that you all still voice your concerns and lodge your objections. Don't just say you don't want or like it, please be specific and stick to rebutting their points of arguement. Please write to Caroline Jeffery Principal Planning Officer, Environment dept., County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2UD, FAX her on 01603 223219, or lodge your letter online www.norfolk.gov.uk/nmwdf . Don't think this isn't going to happen, because it will if not now then in a few years unless we prevent this and stop it in its tracks.

Go through their list of 'reasonings' and word your letter to rebut their claims. Take photos and record rare plants, birds, wildlife, find out who owns what land and get them to object, tell them they have incorrectly referred to improvements on the B1146 instead of the B1145 and how busy this road is, what an accident black spot this and the Bawsey Dips are,what about saddleries and bridal paths - is this will effect your business in anyway tell them, tell them how whenever there is an accident on the A47 this is where the traffic is diverted to, if you live in ChilverHouse or Cliffe-en-howe throw everything you can at them repeating whatever you said last time round and adding more this time round (you can now see what evidence if any they are relying on). No mention is made of meteorological factors such as the valley forming a wind tunnel thus making the dangers of air pollution even more of a factor.

Thanks for reading and please do write. If you are able to come back to me to let me know you have done so that would be great.

Hope you are all keeping well, if you know of anyone who would like to join up to our group "ERASE" (Exploited Residents Against Silica Extraction) then please get them to contact me, unless of course they work for Sibelco (WBB) or NCC's mineral planning department, in which case they can read our website instead!

Kind regards

Karan

Hello all,

Ive had a couple of queries and thought it best to print and clarify:

Aren't they saying that Min42 and MIN 113 are part of the 66 sites already considered unsuitable or unnecessary for allocation? So is any further action required or am I missing something?

You have probably seen this document but if not go to page 34 and at the conclusion of the piece it appears to me to say that the site will not be allocated. What do you think?

My Response:

That's right at this present moment in time on this round of planning applications, neither MIN42 nor MIN 113 in their original states have been considered appropriate for inclusion.

However, there is further clear argument that they will be reconsidering this as a revised further issue and option in other documentation that they will be trying again to access the site North of Chilver House Lane and on the south east side/Leziate Drove side but that they need to look at access via B1145/Leziate Drove and other issues etc first.

They made their decision not to include MIN42 (and MIN113 which has now appeared and wasn't previously included or indeed in existence) based on the document "Further Issues and Options". This time round, we are taking part in a new consultation called "Revised Further Issues and Options"...

When I asked our Councillor Janet Murphy whether MIN42/MIN 113 was definitely out of the woods now, her response was,

"I also asked specifically about MIN42 and that is not in the current acceptable sites. However, we are below the national targets that Norfolk has been set centrally for silica sand and I understand that the consultation will include a call for further suggestions for silica sand sites. I have been told that these may come as new sites but, in view of the very limited areas in which silica sand is found in the county, further submissions may include amended proposals/additional evidence as to suitability for sites that are not currently acceptable, so it will be important to keep an eye on this still".

And she's quite right to say we need to remain on our mettle because their letter states they are now consulting on "Revised Further Issues and Options", so we need to respond regarding their future plans on this now. This is a further submission with amended proposals/additional evidence .Hope that all makes sense.

If I could add a comment to this, in respect to registering objections. In my experience, beware of developing a standard letter if objection that all has to be added is a name and address: this is not a good idea, as a planning committee are often likely to bundle all similarly worded objections into one pile and class them all as "one objection" only.
Regards
Jon Large.

Hello everyone

It has been brought to my attention that MIN39 has also now reappeared with new boundaries and is back in the equation .

For those of you who are not familiar with where it is:

If you travel along East Winch Road with Ashwicken behind you, past Glosthorpe Manor, curve round to the right as if you were heading towards East Winch, the airfield or little post office its the huge fields on your left.

The people in Church Lane and particularly on the south side of it will be affected as will our Church (All Saints), the residents of Glosthorpe Manor and all those along Ashwicken Road will also. They intend turning it into yet another lake when they have finished. At THIS stage it is part of an accepted and allocated site based on their intention to iron out the problems they have highlighted and as a site for search and potential useage.

I already have a huge job on my hands with Min42 and now MIN113 so I am suggesting a sub group of you get together to look at their assessments and make sure you all object (thats everone of a reasonable understanding in your household so hopefully at least 2 letters per household +) basing your arguments on those they use in their assessments and anything else you think is relevant please. Do this via the same details I have shown on previous email.

I will find the paperwork such as the fact that there ARE recognised dangers to digging (and not just processing at the plant) for you to add in, anything else anyone has please share. Then we can all get together to discuss and I am hoping to contact our PC, borough Councillor Alistair Beales is already aware and on the case and our County Councillor Janet Murphy to ensure our objections to the 'revised' further options are well and truly known.

You will by now be aware that reduced but still very large sections of MIN 42 are still in for consideration if they can sort out access along Leziate Drove and Chilver House lane ends, so the next time this is all due in a few years time

if you don't lodge your objections NOW (particularly all you landowners), then your back garden will become a mine/quarry.

Please see again:

Minerals Site Allocations: Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) Consultation (consultation ended: 11/12/2009)

Site ref no.

MIN 39

Parish

LEZIATE and EAST WINCH

Location of site

Land at Wicken East, East Winch Road, Ashwicken, King’s Lynn

Submitted by

Sibelco Ltd

Proposed use/s

Mineral extraction (silica sand)

Estimated

reserves

Allocation / Area of Search

Area of Search

Size of site (ha)

57.2

Background information: There are no current mineral or waste planning permissions at this site. The site lies immediately to the east of an active pit with planning permission for silica sand extraction.

Landscape: The site comprises undulating arable land which slopes down to the Middleton Stop Drain, the site is subdivided by hedgerows and groups of trees, which form landscape features which would be lost be working the site. The site is identified as being moderately tranquil by the CPRE and is in an area of dark landscape on the county map. There may be views of the site from some upstairs windows of properties on Church Lane, and the site could impact on the setting of the listed Church of All Saints, although it may be possible to acceptably screen this. Restoration is likely to be to a mix of open water and woodland.

Ecology: Providing that the Rookery woodland, and the boundary hedgerows and trees are safeguarded with a suitable buffer then the ecological impacts could be minimised. It would be necessary to carry out surveys for protected species and nesting birds prior to development and suitable mitigation put in place. A high quality restoration scheme with blocks of woodland and some open water in areas closer to the valley floor could provide greater biodiversity on the site and an ecological gain in the long term.

Highways: There are no acceptable HGV routes direct from the site to the A47 and the junctions to the A47 would require assessment to identify any Capacity/safety impacts. However if the material was transported by conveyor to the existing Leziate processing site, the existing road and rail links could be used.

Amenity: Concerns have been made regarding the impacts of noise, dust and vibration on nearby properties; this would need to be assessed in any application and suitable mitigation put in place.

Water resources/quality: Part of the site is within Flood Risk zone 3 and will require a Flood Risk Assessment to identify any potential adverse impacts. As mineral extraction on site will probably require dewatering any developer will need to identify any abstraction points/wells that will be affected by a drop in groundwater levels and mitigate/compensate the owners of these abstraction points. A Hydrogeological Risk Assessment (HRA) will be required to identify any impacts on nearby waterbodies/ groundwater resources and suitable mitigation including the impacts on groundwater dependent protected sites such as East Winch Common SSSI.

Geodiversity: This site may contain potential geodiversity features of local significance. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational phases and ideally as part of any restoration scheme.

Other comments: Part of this site is crossed by a high pressure gas transmission pipeline which would require a suitable standoff zone surrounding it and additional works to protect the stability of the pipeline, by for example constructing suitable crossing points for heavy plant; or diversion at the developer’s expense and National Grid’s agreement. The site is also crossed by powerlines and the National Grid have indicated that a statutory clearance area will be required.

Conclusion: This site is considered to be suitable for allocation as an area of search. Further modification and amendment to the site proposal is likely to be necessary as part of any future application; however it is felt that the site is acceptable in principle subject to conditions including:

An approved scheme of working and restoration which addressed landscape, ecology, geodiversity issues.

A noise and dust assessment which identified any potential impacts and appropriate mitigation to address these.

• A Hydrogeological Risk Assessment which identified any potential impacts to groundwater and appropriate mitigation to address these.

• A routing agreement to transport material by conveyor or internal haul route to the existing processing works.

• An agreement with the distribution network operator and the mineral operator on safeguarding the gas transmission pipeline and any powerlines affected.

Site allocated.

Proposed Incinerator

2010-07-12T21:45:00.000+01:00

I received an email today and thought it best to share its contents:

"According to Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS and Michael Ryan, a civil engineer, [the proposed incinerator at Saddlebow] is likely to cause all the problems that every other incinerator of its type is causing wherever they are built, ie foetal abnormalities, baby deaths, cancers, heart attacks and strokes, especially downwind ie to the east. Whilst the council have tried to make it sound as if it is the answer to all our problems of landfill, Michael Ryan has ascertained from the Department of Health that no government health studies have ever taken place around incinerators, a fact echoed by the Health Protection Agency. In fact the HPA even recommend that no investigations take place (See their words in Hansard 30th November 2009).

I have invited Dr van Steenis to address a public meeting on this subject on 20th July at 7pm in the Methodist Church, London Road, King's Lynn (opposite the police station). I have invited MPs and councillors to attend and it is to be chaired by Lord Lester. Please can you inform anyone you know who may be interested. It could be that it will be necessary to use an adjoining room at the venue which has loudspeakers fitted, due to a large number of people attending. (We hope this will be the case really)."

Minerals and waste sites allocations

2009-08-16T15:28:00.000+01:00

The draft preferred sites documents/consultation are currently scheduled to be discussed by NCC Cabinet on 14 September 2009.

The Agenda will be published 7 days before the meeting - here is the link to Cabinet Papers:

http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=479&Committee=Cabinet

The Agenda has items in blue which then link you to the report relevant to that topic.

Review of WBB Open Day, Saturday, 11/10/08

2008-10-25T08:23:00.006+01:00

King's Lynn's answer to the Sahara Desert!

No problem providing a children's sand pit for the day!

A sand dune and a large sulphuric acid tank at WBB/Sibelco, 11/10/08

Some Really Big Diggers!

A LOCAL VIEW

"I felt it should really have been called a family fun day. I am angry that WBB feel they can call this an open day when it would have been impossible to sit down quietly somewhere to ask serious questions on behalf of people whose lives will be changed forever to their detriment by these proposals when you are surrounded by balloons, twirling fairground cups, bouncy castles, screaming kids and face painters.

This was just a jolly for employee's kids and local families whose boys love to go for rides in Jeeps, it wasn't a balanced meeting with their public. This isn't about boy's toys but about people's future lives and when I saw the size of those diggers my heart sank at the prospect of looking at those daily from my front door.

Just who do they think they are that can trivialise something so important in this way. If they were to hold a second exhibition and presentation for people who need answers i may have taken some notice but this was an absolute farce. there was nothing stopping them putting one of their employees in the quiet/video room to address serious issues, but no - where was the jelly and ice cream?

Did you get him on his own in a quiet undisturbed room to answer your questions properly or do they think we will be so impressed by their display and rides that we will all change our minds?"

REPLY by EWAG Chairman & Webmaster Neil Paddock:

Actually, No.

It was, as ever, an excellent demonstration of Public Relations.
The cynical among you might even consider the word "spin".

There were balloons tied up at the entrance in bunches at the gate entrance, and a friendly leaflet about the company and the site handed out as you drove in. Nice shiny new Sibelco signs have been installed, replacing the earlier old and shabby WBB Minerals ones.

A sand pit was provided for the kids (no shortage of sand obviously), a large marquee set up with conservation and archaeology experts available showing specimens of local wildlife (a young grasssnake and some historic pottery and coin finds from the King's Lynn site)

(see http://saveeastwinch.blogspot.com/2008/10/wbb-open-daywas-it-all-hot-air.html for further details)

We did make contact with a number of WBB Minerals (now called Sibelco) officials, including Resources Director Gary Stringer and Andy Price (The IT manager who had said in the paper that silica sand is safe when it's still in the ground, which I thought was a great argument for not digging it up in the first place!)

Mr Stringer offered us what he thought we would accept as some good news -they were not considering landfill for MIN40, As "We are not that type of company."

[From what we are led to believe about the toxicity of Bawsey Lake, would a lake be any better than a landfill, I wonder? 50% of our voters on http://www.saveeastwinch.blogspot.com/ seem to think it would be good, despite the risk of property subsidence due to a lowering water table and potential flood risks once the lakes (at Grandcourt Quarry in Middleton, formerly Grandcourt Farm) are completed.]

We were offered a 20 minute tour of the site, and a follow up meeting to answer questions.

Mr Stringer felt he would not be able to answer all the questions EWAG raised in the letter to Tom Cutbush (Sibelco's Chief Executive) as he informed us each site is different.
He did say that it would be a number of years (3 or more?) before anything would happen on the site due to how the planning application process works. They have to do environmental surveys first and so on in order for planning permission to be granted. Grandcourt Quarry took a number of years he said (about 5 years I think, from original intent to permission being given - see WBB's website for more details)

[It would have been a lot longer if I had known about it at the time!

Two small notices were put up for a two week period on each side of the village, the very week my family and I came to view our current property in East Winch. Nothing showed up at all on the local search (they are in my view, a complete waste of money, by the way, unless you already have a quarry in your garden it wouldn't show up anyway!) ]

When asked he confirmed that they do quarry right up to people's homes in some cases, including their site in Doncaster as an example.

It is also worth mentioning that there were a number of large display stands featuring their company, what they stand for, and a large aerial photo of what the finished Grandcourt Quarry would look like complete with lakes and... the extension to MIN 40 was included, as if they have already got it!

Still "just" a proposal at this stage (without planning permission) but clearly part of their plans to extend the site at some stage in the future.

Outlined in red and going right up to the garden fences of Town Close in East Winch Village!

The thought of the wholesale destruction at Grandcourt on the west side is bad enough - the site is massive, and will generate quite a bit of dust, I should imagine.

Andy Price said 75% of their staff have no trace of PM10 particles showing up

They also informed us that when it's really windy, they stop digging.

We spoke about air quality monitoring and they mentioned they could set up a monitor near the school.

Overall, it was business as usual for WBB/ Sibelco.

A friendly face for the public ("Working together for mineral solutions" is their slogan).
£100 of Raffle prizes generously donated by them for Leziate's Church Roof.

Wendy Twite (the writer of the "Blackmail" article in the Parish Newsletter) introduced herself to me, told me she wrote what she felt and promptly offered me some raffle tickets!

Regards

Neil Paddock
Chairman, EWAG
Webmaster ERASE and SaveEastWinch

PS Don't forget there is a meeting pending with Henry Bellingham MP and local councillors in attendance on Friday 21st November 2008, regarding MIN 40 at East Winch Village Hall.

http://saveeastwinch.blogspot.com/2008/10/joint-update-meeting-with-henry.html

Pott RoW

2008-09-22T21:53:00.000+01:00

ERASE Update - Please read...

2008-09-21T11:19:00.003+01:00

TO ALL MEMBERS:

FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!
We still need to carry on fighting the remaining items on MIN42 and supporting others in neighbouring areas who still have their planned excavations.

WHO OWNS WHAT?
Please do your best in ascertaining who exactly owns what land on the proposed MIN42 sites and contacting us with full details and Ordinance Survey grid references please.

WBB OPEN DAY 11th October 2008
Please note the date ot the WBB open day sat 11/10 10.30-3pm, ask for people to think of pertinent questions and let the group know if they can attend please.
Please spend some time at the open day to contact Karan so we can timetable everyone in and not leave WBB any breathing space.

THANKS TO ALL OF YOU
A resounding big thank you to all the people of the surrounding villages who have helped with all the footwork and a special thanks to landowner Tim Flux.

POTT ROW
People of Pott Row - Please rally to the cause
(poster to be attached in due course - it reads...).

"People of Pott Row
This is their plan:
MIN 42 at Grimston, Bawsey, Leziate:
A large area of the site has been removed due to a letter from the landowner
stating he objected to the site.

WBB are hosting an open day Saturday 11th of October 10.30-3pm. Please attend and ask some awkward questions!
See www.eraseorg.blogspot.com or email erase.org@tiscali.co.uk If you don’t act – this WILL happen…………… "

Bawsey Lake - Response from Norfolk County Council

2008-05-18T20:43:00.003+01:00

A reply from Norfolk County Council re restoration of lake areas:

"Concerning your recent enquiry, I would respond that:-

1. A large part of the older historical workings continued in accordance with an old planning permission given in 1947 (MW1), known as an 'Interim Development Order'. Subsequent legislation in 1991 (the Planning and Compensation Act), required these old permissions to be registered, or they ceased to have effect. The operating company failed to do this, rendering the old permission of 'no effect'. The advantage to the Council was that no further extraction was allowed in those areas, but the down side was that restoration was un-enforceable. Since that time however, the Council have considered any opportunity to provide for wider site restoration where this has been possible. The operating company are generally committed to providing for high standards of site restoration.

2. The sands in the area are rich in iron pyrite. On exposure to air it oxidises to produce sulphuric acid. The waters have a very high concentration of sulphate such that constant liming will not have a permanent effect, because the high sulphate values will eventually return the pH to the original low values. The areas adjacent to the old lake areas are colonised by acid loving grasses and associated plant life. I understand that swimming may be possible in such waters, but subject to all site notices and safety arrangements in place etc. The operating company do carry out regular water testing in the area, and are aware or the difficulties that stem from naturally low pH values in these waters.

I trust this information is of assistance."

A Little Proper Research...

2008-05-10T10:59:00.004+01:00

An article based on the presentation given by Neil Paddock, Chairman of the East Winch Action Group at Leziate on 28th April can be read at our related website

www.saveeastwich.blogspot.com

by clicking on the title of this article.

Amicus Poster

2008-05-04T20:03:00.005+01:00

More on Silica Sand...

2008-05-04T19:28:00.008+01:00

"There are 25 silica sand sites in Great Britain. There are also about 20 working mines in which industrial minerals (such as potash, gypsum, limestone) are extracted, but with one exception the silica content is low. Recent data indicates that for certain tasks exposures can exceed 0.3 mg/m3 (8-hr TWA) but in these circumstances respiratory protective equipment is used."

Click on the link in the title for more information.

What about the general public living next door to the sites? Like the owners of the property immediately to the left of this site in Ashwicken behind the screen of trees?

Voice of the Villages Articles, May 2008

2008-05-04T11:28:00.004+01:00

The following are scans from the latest Gayton Group of Parishes magazine.

The first article sets out ERASE's position, the second is the view from WBB Minerals.

I have put a link in the title to the Voice of the Villages website, however, please note that parts of this site are still under construction.

Leziate Joint Assembly Group Meeting

2008-05-04T10:50:00.002+01:00

There was a great turn out of 180 local residents of all the villages affected by these mineral extraction proposals.
There were a number of speakers including Ian Monson (NCC Cabinet Representative for Waste and Minerals), Alistair Beales (Borough Councillor), Heather Bolt (NCC councillor), Brian Long (Councillor for the Environment, KL&WNBC) and Cliff Smalley from Save Pentney and Neil Paddock from EWAG (East Winch) action groups. The evening was hosted by our group ERASE - (Exploited Region Against Silica Extraction).

Henry Bellingham who was away in Ireland, sent his apologies and added "In the meantime, you have my 100% support in your campaign to prevent any further desecration of our beautiful countryside in your locality".

RSPB Action Pack Available

2008-05-04T08:41:00.001+01:00

I have attached a link to a zipped copy of the RSPB action pack, which contains useful information about protecting wildlife from development

Contents includes:
Getting involved in planning applications
Getting your message across to local politicians
Getting your message across with local media
Helping you to assess the value of a wildlife site
How to get involved with local development plans
Planning for wildlife
Protecting birds from development
Protecting hedgerows, trees and woodlands
Protecting other wildlife from development proposals
The planning system
Useful Contacts England
You can make positive changes in your community

NB You will need a copy of Winzip to unzip these files

Lessons in sand-processing Lynn News 290408

2008-05-03T20:45:00.001+01:00

FACTS about Silica Sand

2008-04-10T23:50:00.001+01:00

FACTS about Silica Sand and Leziate beds:

Leziate predominantly produces silica for glass containers.
It does produce some for foundry useage but with the progressive decline in UK heavy manufacturing, notably the foundry industry, has resulted in a significant decline in the demand for foundry sand.
In contrast there has been a recent increase in the demand for glass sand (silica) which is used for flat screen TVs, computer screens, golf course sand, play glass sand and equestrain dressage.
the largest silica producer is WBB Minerals Ltd which accounts for over 50% of total production. There are around 12 silica sites around the UK of which WBB own 7. The company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SCR Sibelco, a privately owned Belgian group with silica sand interests worldwide.
The type of silica sand that runs through our region, begins South of Norfolk and runs North-South up to as far as around Snettisham and is Cretaceous silica sand.
Whilst silica for colourless glass is only produced at 7 locations in the UK , this Eastern region alone accounts for nearly 40% of total output in England.
Kings Lynn (Leziate) is one of the very few deposits where there is no associated production of construction sand.
The open caste mining of silica sand in our area, has nothing to do with the construction industry and the growth of Kings Lynn.
Processing plant for silica sand requires high capital investment. Sufficient permitted reserves are required to reflect this investment. For this reason and the fact that there are limited reserves, it would appear that silica sand is deemed a mineral of 'national importance'.
Kings Lynn/Leziate uses hot sulphuric acid leaching and cold acid leaching to process its silica for flat glass.
In 2004 the UK produced 1.9 million tonnes of container glass valued at £615 million of which nearly 70% was colourless (and we already know this eastern region produced 40% of that).

MIN40 at East Winch which is 52.7 hectares shows estimated reserves of 3,000,000 tonnes on silica sand.
MIN42 (Ashwicken, Bawsey, Leziate and Pott Row) is 180 hectares plus MIN94 at Roydon and Congham is 113.6 hectares. Combined, they make almost 300 hectares, 6 times the size making 18,000,000 of estimated reserve. Do your sums - it's not rocket science to realise WHY this really is considered to be a mineral of 'national importance' - MONEY!
Recycled glass (cullet) from bottles could increasingly be used to make new glass, but the excuse for not using this is that the quality is impaired by mixing the wrong colours at the recycling point (green with brown etc.) - that's as sophisticated as it gets!

MIN 42 & WBB Site at Leziate

2008-04-10T23:10:00.013+01:00

00004/5 The first couple show a typical wind blowing up surface sand - can you imagine the perpetual sand storm blown up by diggers burrowing 12m deep!

00025 Last view of WBB site at Leziate (not the processing site)

00024 Second view of WBB site at Leziate

00023 Views of existing WBB site at leziate

00013 Second view of MIN42
(continuation of first from left to right)
from south/Ashwicken Village

00012 First view from house 25' from MIN42

ERASE NOW ONLINE!

2008-04-10T17:41:00.000+01:00

The Villages of Ashwicken, Leziate, Bawsey and Pott Row have united to form an action group against the proposals to extract sand and silica sand on massive scales in and around our villages.

The proposals would amount to the further destruction of thousands of acres of beautiful land in this area, so we must combine our resources to make our objections known and to fight these proposals at all costs.

Our particular concern is the safety of silica extraction. Silica is a mineral used predominantly in the glass making and leisure industry. Ths silica in this area is used to make glass containers. No silica stays here, but is sent to meet the demands for flat computer screens and sand for golf courses, play sand and equestrian surfaces. These are alternatives to raw mineral extraction such as the use of cullet glass.

Silica is a recognised carginogenic and inhalation of fine silica dust particles can lead to silicosis, respiratory disease and lung cancer. It is time NCC stood up and challenged the demands made by central government and protected the health safety and environment of the people they are employed to represent.

We trust that we can rely on the support of neighbouring villages who do not have proposals directly in their parish. Anyone who would like further information can email us on erase.org@tiscali.co.uk