Illegal tree felling behind Town Close

We have discovered that one of the owners of the farmland near "MIN40" has destroyed two clumps of trees, which were still standing when we walked around the site on 26th April. The first picture shows Town Close, looking south, with the pile of felled trees on the immediate left.


As you can see from the photos I have taken today, the trees have been uprooted.

There was a pile of burnt sticks further away from this site where the second clump of trees has been felled and incinerated.

A couple of the local children were playing near the felled trees.


They told me that there had been birds nesting in the trees at the time they were cut down. Tree felling whilst birds are nesting is illegal.

Furthermore, the children told me that they were worried about the farmer cutting down the trees, and had been making protest signs out of cardboard to stop them being felled.

As it turns out, the farmer, I am told, threw the sign of the pile of deadwood and burned it.

So now the kids have one less place to play (unless a grubby old patch of deadwood counts).

They also told me that they wanted everybody in the village to come out and join hands, to stop lorries coming in and digging the quarry.


So what is the farmer's explanation?

Was he just being on old sourpuss because the kids didn't want him to cut down the trees?

And why did this have to be done whilst birds were nesting?

Why flagrantly break the law?

When we visited the site on 26th April, these trees were still standing and pheasants were using them as cover.

As I stood next to the broken pile of deadwood earlier today, Saturday, 17th May, a pheasant scrambled out and took off a few feet from me.

So what I want to know is, who owns this piece of land?

Who ordered the trees to be felled?

What is their explanation?

The leaflet "Protecting hedgerows, trees and woodlands" from the RSPB says:

"The WCA [Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981] does not legally protect a tree.
The Act protects active nests of all wild birds, and should delay tree work, if this were to result in the damage or destruction of an active nest."

The children at the site today told me that there was a baby bird in one nest and eggs in a separate nest. They believe all the eggs & baby birds were destroyed.
I think those count as active nests, don't you?

"As always an excellent, well written piece webmaster"

"Well done to EWAG and webmaster for all the hard work and standing up for our village and encouraging us to unite and keep fighting, we are with you all the way.

THIS IS OUR VILLAGE! and we DO NOT want a quarry, our health put at risk and our wonderful village life we chose so cruelly taken away."

I get feedback. Quite a lot of it. Good feedback, and not so good feedback. Feedback that I like, and feedback that I think stinks.

This is feedback I like.

Thank you so much for your comment and for your support. It means a great deal to me, and it's very timely too.

In the same way that this village means a lot to me.

A little encouragement goes a long way.

Some news just out...

"Silica sand isn't dangerous.

The parish council are on our side.

And I'm a little teapot called Dave."

I'm so glad we cleared that up!

Excuse me whilst I disassociate myself from the above comments.

Parish Council Meeting

I had the pleasure of attending the East Winch Parish Council Meeting this evening.

I think it raises far more questions than were actually answered to any satisfactory degree.

Here are a few highlights.

For Example:

1) Question: Why was half of Min40 offered up by the Parish Council in their response to Norfolk County Council?

"As Silica Sand is a strategic mineral and local policy will undoubtedly be overruled by national policy any reduction that can be gained on the proposed area of the site needs to be negotiated now and definitely at the next stage of consultation when it will be know which sites will be included in the final proposal and ultimately at the Planning Application stage which may not be for many years if the site is included."

Answer: Have you read the Orange Book?

I tell you what, If you have read it, and you understand it, explain to me and the rest of East Winch what it says, instead of guarding it's secrets and implying the knowledge of those secrets make it all so obvious to those "in the know".

I have been too busy doing "a little proper research" on Health and Safety which I believe to be more important, rather than memorising reams of council policy which encourages many acres of Norfolk to be dug up and destroyed with little justification.

I believe in prevention, not mindless compliance.

I was led to believe by the parish clerk this evening and comments by Mr Underwood that half of Min40 is already a done deal, as she drew her finger down the middle of the site plan.

That simply doesn't stack up with the site being a mere proposal, or as Henry Bellingham referred to being on the "wishlist".

Better explanation required please. It simply doesn't make sense.

2) Two Houses for development on A47.
This decision was put on hold as there was some debate as to whether or not the proposed dwellings would be within the "village envelope".

The upshot of this is that as there is only 21 days given to object against the proposals, and the notice was issued on 24th April, the chairman's decision to delay making any decision this evening pending more information(given that the parish council meet only every 2 months) will result in their approval (subject to any other objections of course) by default.

This will clearly help anybody with a commercial interest in the properties being built get what they want.

Was there anybody present this evening, I wonder, who had an interest in those properties being built. I wonder!

There is a further ethical point to consider.

Is it ethical to continue to build houses in an area which could be overrun with quarries within a few years? To do so would mean that any incoming property owner, who is probably coming out to Norfolk to escape to the country and/or retire, will put a substantial part of their life savings into their new property.

Once they have moved into the area, and the news about the quarries gets out, how much of a financial hit will these people have to take if they decide to move out
again?

And if they decide to stay, what about the risks to their health and wellbeing?

Can they expect the full all night floodlighting treatment that people at Leziate get?

Is it right to pull new people into the area, when the quarries don't show up on searches? I don't think so. More victims that someone somewhere is making money out of. It's exploitation. It's shameful.

3) Defraying of expenses. Nell asked the Parish Council if EWAG could get expenses reimbursed for costs incurred in the runup to the objections being delivered to Norfolk County Council.

The Parish Clerk replied that there were rules and regulations that prevent them from doing so, and from being linked with Action Groups.

She did not tell us what these rules were specifically.

I asked why it was the case that the Parish Council could associate with WBB Minerals and not the East Winch Action Group.

I was told that WBB had no such representation on the council.

Although Mr Dennis Underwood (Now Vice Chairman EWPC) did remind us he had declared an interest.

At this point I mentioned about chocolate fireguards and left the room.

I had in fact neglected to mention the not so publicised "Local Liason meetings" with WBB held every 6 months or so, as reported to me by Keith Harrod (WBB) and Rob Cranthorne (NCC).

Does that or does that not count as an association?

Please explain. I'm curious.

4) Mr Keith Harrod from WBB talked about sand blowing around, and dust being generated at some point further down the line, dust and PM10 and so on.

So when could it be dangerous...
When you come and dig it up?

I asked him what he meant in his letter of 24th September 2004 to Leziate Parish Council, when he wrote:

"The wind blown sand was causing concerns within the quarry area and the efforts were made to increase levels of dampening down the quarry with a water bowser, but the force of the wind countered this action and made it useless."

Not a great confidence builder in my book that one.
No nice feeling of being warm and safe after reading that.



Conclusion
Let's examine what a fireguard does for a moment. It is a form of protection that stops you getting burned.

Based on my observations, the parish council is not carrying out it's work in a way that supports the best interests of the village as a whole. This has been demonstrated in the quotation above by offering up half the quarry with adequate vegetation screening which may be acceptable before the proposal stage has even completed.

Even if I was to commend them for the more mundane aspects of their work, ensuring street lights are maintained and dog loos are emptied and deciding how much to spend on bouquets of flowers and so on...

I cannot see how [agreeing to / not objecting to] the land to the West of Grandcourt Farm being approved for planning permission in September 2007 is not a serious and unforgiveable lapse in the protection of villager's interests.

It was one of the points that wasn't covered at the meeting this evening. The bouquets and the dog loos took precedence after our allotted time was at an end.


DOMINOES
The domino effect is now in full swing, you can see East Winch disappearing under a mountain of grey shading from the encroaching quarrying.

As Mr Underwood mentioned this evening, it is likely to affect property values.

How many of the Parish Council's property values, I wonder will be directly affected?

Surely I don't need to revisit the health and safety issues associated with silica dust again, labelled by Mr Underwood as my "scaremongering".

(I think I now have a pretty good idea who Mr Anonymous is!)

Why do we have to wait until we've got the disease to prove it's real?

MESSAGE TO WBB MINERALS
WBB, Give us proof it's safe. No more wooly talk about the sand grains being too big to breathe in when it's still underground. Don't insult our intelligence.

Why should the onus fall on the villagers to prove we are ill when it's too late and WBB are all in the Bahamas sipping cocktails?

Prove to us what you are doing now is safe. Or stop doing it until you can. Be responsible.

Let's have public access to your safety records.

Tell us about your air quality monitoring.

Tell us about the dust generated on haul routes.

Clean up Bawsey.

Go On, Put your money where your mouth is.

Walk the talk from your article in Voice of the Villages.

Be responsible.

I don't buy the denials from the EDP. They stink.

Tell the truth.

Then we can talk.

Nobody has to be a chocolate fireguard here.

We can all be grown up, and choose to do the right thing.

You know it makes sense.

And I'm confident that if you all carry on with your heads in the sand, in 30 or 40 years time, the crisis you have all created with your complacency and ignorance (and vitiating inaction) will be utterly tragic and utterly self evident for all to see.

So stop it now.

So no more bullshit. OK?

The people of Norfolk deserve your respect and the truth.

AND TO THE PARISH COUNCIL...
Stop playing favourites and hiding behind your aura of self importance and ever so general "rules and regulations" which suit some and not others, your fancy jargon, the "orange book" and the "village envelope" amongst others, and support the health, wellbeing and the views and the interests of your villagers.

Or we will have to find somebody else who will.

And don't forget, any quarry is a secret one if nobody tells you it is there. Especially when it's obscured by banks of earth, screens of trees, restricted notices put in not so obvious places and guarded talk from those "in the know".

Thanks to the chairman Mr Veltzeboer, for admitting that he didn't know about the health risks associated with silica sand.

And thanks to Mr Underwood for bringing along a picture of my Dad -
It's a reminder that some things are definately worth fighting for.
And here's another one.

Keep Smiling.
Anyone fancy a choccie?

Spot the difference...

Here's a little test for you...

One is an artist's impression of something very nice that hasn't happened yet at Grandcourt Farm (now endearingly called Grandcourt Quarry by WBB)


The other is the reality of previous handiwork at Bawsey, which lives on as evidence of unmet expectations and broken promises...


So, which do you choose to believe?

The reality, or the fantasy?

Still want another Lake?

So Just How Many Is Too Many? Toxic Lakes That Is........

I don’t know why, but WBB appear to have absolutely nobody on board with any imagination whatsoever. The company is in dire need of a designer bod to generate ideas when it comes to clearing up their dirty mess each time they leave an empty quarry behind them.

They truly seem to only work along the lines of..............

"...........derrr we dig it all out and then derrr, we fill it all in again with tons of water...... summat like that anyway.......”

Another toxic lake is hardly high on our list of tourism ‘must haves’, not mine anyway, and I doubt not most of the people about to lose the sight of green pastures at Grandcourt Farm.

Maybe it’s time we started demanding what will be acceptable to this village, to replace these utterly barren, poisonous and potentially lethal water holes they seem to be so fond of? After all we will still be living here long after this company has packed up its silicosis activation diggers and moved out. Living here almost certainly harbouring some nasty illnesses – true – but living here we shall be - after all as I mentioned in my first piece, home buyers aren’t exactly going to be knocking at our newly painted ‘silica sandy’ covered front doors, asking us to sell up are they?

So surely we should be the ones to dictate, yes I did say dictate, what should stand in the place of the ruined Grandcourt Farm, after its desolate and craggy demise? Something other than a very large, scabby, boils and blisters water attraction?

We need ideas, ideas that unfortunately may well cost WBB considerable sums of money to do, (nothing worthwhile ever came cheap), and maybe, it will be even necessary for them to be responsible in setting it up and initially running it as well?

So this is my idea, it’s just to get your old brain cells working so that you can all come up with your own - after all it’s YOUR village, not theirs, it should be what YOU want not them. Personally I think my idea is a winner though! 

How's about an indoor permanent ice skating rink with ringside seating, a cafe/restaurant and plenty of car parking? There are none anywhere for locals or even for those living in Kings Lynn. This is why nobody uses the Christmas holiday ice rink that’s set up in the Tuesday Market Place in Kings Lynn every year, because nobody in the area has the opportunity to learn to skate! Only Norwich and Peterborough have ice skating rinks.

It would give us jobs, a great facility for family fun and is in demand. Ice skating has been growing since TV’s Dancing on Ice started a few years ago, I should know, I travelled to Peterborough every Saturday for a year then gave up because of the distance and constant road works! (Passed my first 3 N.I.C.E. grades though! LOL!) Suffolk is looking forward to an indoor winter sports development including an ice rink, why shouldn't Norfolk get something? Particularly as it is suffering so badly with the negative aspects of these quarries.

We can't allow WBB to assume that they can continue lazily refilling toxic silica holes with water that in turn becomes toxic, and think it is an acceptable replacement for destroying the landscape whilst making us ill and seriously depleting our standard of living! They do this because it is the cheapest option, they then wrap it and present the package as ‘beautiful reconstruction scenery’. Yeah right! It’s like the Marie Celeste out there! They haven’t even given any thought to the possibility of flooding down the years, that’s just another little problem we could be envisaging.

WBB are going to have to, must, give BACK to the villagers - give back something of USE. I think the best way they can do that at the Grandcourt site is to provide something that generates employment, and encourages tourism, family leisure time and children’s interests - not by providing a collection of oversized contaminated duck-less flood ponds.

The birds know it – the bees know it, the rest of the wildlife and trees know it,

WBB know it –

‘Love just don’t breed near toxic weed……’

"A Little Proper Research" Leziate 28th April

Thanks to a certain Mr Anonymous, I was able to gather the following material for the Leziate meeting last month:

The following is a statement produced in response to a comment left on the Save East Winch Website, www.saveeastwinch.blogspot.com


“Maybe once youve finished polishing your pitchfork in preparation for your witch hunt you could open your eyes to the real culprit's - every one of us.”

Mr Anonymous,

Thank you for expressing your views on this blog.
Some further "proper research" from yourself would not go amiss either.

Frankly, your ignorance astounds me.

Just to reassure you, I don't have a pitchfork. Although if I did, a quick prod in your gluteus maximus might wake you up to what's really going on here. Wakey Wakey!

Why was there a conference in Stirling on Friday about Occupational Cancers?

http://www.hazards.org/cancer/conference/index.htm

“Despite occupational cancer being the single largest cause of work-related deaths, the risks have been downplayed by governments, health and safety enforcement agencies and employers. The end result has been a wholly preventable epidemic of cancers,” says International Metalworker’s Federation (IMF) general secretary Marcello Malentacchi.


“the red line does NOT mean they will mine up to peoples back fences. Im certain the councils would ensure the correct mitigation measures - it is nieve to think that the council would allow extraction very close to properties without mitigation measures to protect our residents”

That is a dangerous assumption to make, though you have raised a valid point about mitigation measures. Let’s be factual and objective. Let’s find out what mitigation measures are currently in force at existing sites, assess if they are adequate, and establish what additional measures, if any, are needed in future to further reduce risks.


“You quoted the mining companies Safety man as stating that it is perfectly safe when unprocesse- every thing points to this being very true.”

Re WBB’s Andy Price – Comments in EDP 21/04/08
"Silica sand as it exists in the ground is completely harmless because the sand grains are obviously too course to be breathed in."

No problem with that. Pretty obvious really, and a great argument for not digging it up in the first place. According to the man at WBB on the video from the Lynn News dated 150507, the sand lies beneath the topsoil and the overburden. When it’s left undisturbed under the ground it obviously does not form “particulates” (tiny airborne particles) of less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10’s) which are small enough to be ingested into the lungs. Next?

“also it would take many years of 'proper' exposure to result in any damage.”

Is that supposed to make us feel better?
How many years would the quarry be open for? 8 years? 10 years?
Is that long enough do you think to get ‘proper’ exposure?

HSE Construction Information Sheet No 36 Revision 1 states:

“Exposure to silica
The health hazards of silica come from breathing in the
dust. Activities which can expose workers or members
of the public to the dust include:
● stone masonry;
● facade renovation;
● blast cleaning of buildings, especially using sand;
● many demolition processes;
● concrete scabbling, cutting or drilling;
● tunnelling.”

And also

“Breathing in the very fine dust of crystalline silica can lead
to the development of silicosis. This involves scarring of
the lung tissue and can lead to breathing difficulties.
Exposure to very high concentrations over a relatively
short period of time can cause acute silicosis, resulting in
rapidly progressive breathlessness and death within a few
months of onset.”

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis36.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Public Health Service
National Toxicology Program
The Report on Carcinogens 11th Edition states:

Silica, Crystalline (Respirable size) "is known to be a human carcinogen".

"The link between human lung cancer and exposure to Respirable crystalline silica (RCS) was strongest in studies of quarry and granite workers..."

"Residents near quarries and sand and gravel operations are potentially exposed to respirable crystalline silica."

“In humans, respirable crystalline silica persists in the lungs, culminating in the development of chronic silicosis, emphysema, obstructive airway
disease, and lymph node fibrosis.”

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s161sili.pdf


T P Brown & L Rushton, in their paper, Mortality in the UK silica sand industry: Assessment of exposure to RCS say:

“The health consequences of exposure to RCS are well documented in many industries; In addition to silicosis, RCS has been associated with lung cancer, non malignant respiratory disease, non malignant renal disease, and autoimmune disease

However, there have been no studies published of silica sand workers in the UK.

The silica sand industry is engaged in quarrying and refining a product of high silica content and at quarries where silica flour and cristobalite are produced.

Thus the possible respiratory risk may be higher than in other quarrying industries.

During 1986 The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) assembled a cohort of 4749 individuals who had ever been at seven quarries owned by a large UK industrial sand company, but did not collect any exposure data.

An analysis of mortality was undertaken in 1991 but never published.”

Why not?

We can argue this until we are blue in the face.

Is it possible that in the real world, in a number of situations throughout human history, that shareholder's interests, owners of companies, have been put ahead of the long term welfare of the general public, that profit has been put before public safety?

Think of Thalidomide. Think of asbestos, Think of coal-mining. Are we to conclude that there were no risks or consequences from these events either?

It took many, many shattered lives to get governments to take notice of asbestos, including incidentally, my own father who passed away on 13th Dec 2007 at the age of 77, in Southampton General Hospital. He died directly as a result of working with asbestos which we can trace to being well over 40 years ago.

When he left school in 1945, he said in his first job, he and his colleague used to sit on sacks of asbestos. By 1963, he was working in a factory at Neilson’s Yard in Bridge Road, East Molesey which had asbestos corrugated sheeting in its roof. We conclude therefore that he had at least 18 years of intermittent exposure to asbestos.

Would that qualify as being under your definition of “proper exposure”?

For him and many others, the reforms made to ban asbestos in the 1970’s were too little, too late. The seeds were already sown. The time bomb was already ticking.

Personally, I hate the thought of history repeating itself, don’t you?

So I have a question for you, would you like to see a friend or a member of your family in intensive care, sedated, on a ventilator with a huge tube inserted into their mouth and throat, unable to talk, ashen grey, and being told by the doctors that they will take them off the ventilator in the morning to see if they can breathe unaided? Which in most cases, they can't? Being told that they are riddled with cancer, that’s spread rapidly from their lungs to other parts of their body, a cancer which is extremely difficult to detect before it’s too late? A cancer which the doctor told me is only detected early enough if found by chance. My father was allowed a week on the ventilator before he was taken off it as there is a continuous queue of other people coming in to take their place on the machine. I wonder why?

Would you also deny the truth of the story of the man who was paid just £3,750 in compensation for contracting silicosis at work?
HSE inspector Andrea Robbins said: "Breathing in the very fine dust of crystalline silica can lead to the development of silicosis, which in its most acute form can result in premature death.
"It is vital employers monitor dust levels to assess the risk of exposure and that they put control measures in place to reduce the levels to which employees are exposed.
"What makes this particular situation worse is that the company had previously commissioned the services of an external company to carry out atmospheric monitoring of dust levels, but did nothing to act upon the findings."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7099771.stm

Are all these quoted sources, in your opinion, including HSE’s own published documentation, "less than Half truths?"

What exactly do you define as “a little proper research”?

That still leaves many other risks in the workplace.

If you are so convinced there's no risk then go and stand in the quarry at Ashwicken without any protective clothing, masks etc. and then tell me there's no risk.

Preventing occupational cancer

A new cancer prevention guide, reveals that over 600,000 deaths a year – one death every 52 seconds – are caused by occupational cancer, making up almost one-third of all work-related deaths.
GLOBAL: A worldwide epidemic of occupational cancer is claiming at least one life every 52 seconds, but this tragedy is being ignored by both official regulators and employers.

http://www.imfmetal.org/main/index.cfm?n=47&l=2&c=15708

If all of us are in fact to blame, then we should be seeking a solution together to stop workers dying of preventable cancers every 52 seconds, and that means lobbying the government and becoming educated about the risks, not simply denying them.

Every denial now leads to another pointless death, and another. Every 52 seconds. Just consider for a moment how many more people will die due to asbestos, alone, over the next 20 years or so, let alone the other illnesses we have mentioned.

And that only applies to workers in the workplace. It doesn't cover
people who are trapped living next to a quarry with the dust blowing into their gardens where their children play.

Every denial might aspire to be a half truth, but it is not. It is a simply a lie. An untruth.

And you will have to take your head out of the (silica) sand long enough to recognise it.

Martin Luther King said words to the effect of "man's inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the actions of those who are bad, but also by the inaction of those who are good."

To say there is no risk is to protract this argument and in so doing to condemn many more people to a pointless, slow & painful death, and to deprive today’s children of their parents in later life many years earlier than necessary.

Since we started the “Save East Winch” website I have been accused of making "ignorant statements", though I recognise that I am not alone in my ignorance, and I am at least prepared to do something about it. A little proper research, for example.

Are you?

“Scare tactics based on not even half truths should not be published until the full story is known.”

How much of the full story do we need to know?

1) We know that MIN40 is a proposal, which could get the go ahead as a preferred site in a matter of weeks.

2) We know that Grandcourt Farm West has been granted planning permission as of 7/9/07, without the majority of the local resident’s knowledge. We do know that 3 parish councils, (Middleton Leziate and East Winch) the RSPB, NWT, HSE and our local councillors were there, amongst others, and raised no objections on Health grounds or any other grounds for that matter with the exception of a Middleton Parish Council’s comment about a haul route off the A47. Why not?

3) We know that the Quarry on the Ashwicken/East Winch Road is in full operation, and we have established from previous evidence that the risk comes from live quarries, not from the ones they haven’t dug yet.

To quote Andy Price from EDP 21/04/08 “Silica only becomes potentially harmful when fine dust is generated during industrial processes which cause grains of silica to be broken down into microscopic particles.”

That is, when they come and dig it up. Which they are already doing at Ashwicken and also, we believe at the land to the west of Grandcourt Farm. WBB can confirm.

Andy also states: “No cases of silicosis have ever been recorded among members of the public in great Britain.” Compare with Brown & Rushton’s comment “there have been no studies published of silica sand workers in the UK.”

So despite the talk in the papers and from officials of the so called “wish list”, the so called “consultation” and silicosis only being seen in industries, according to Andy Price “where there is a significant exposure to silica dust” (e.g. silica sand quarrying)

the risk is real.

It exists, here and now.

Not in the summer.

Now.

In the air that we breathe.

Here & Now.

The clock is set.

This time bomb is already ticking.



And as for scare tactics, if we waited to publish everything until the full story is known, it would be too late to save anybody. But by then of course, Norfolk County Council will have met the Government’s quota (a win for them), WBB will have got their sand (a win), The Landowner will have got his money (a win), and oh yes, the villagers will have been left with ALL THE RISK from the transaction, none of the benefits and more than likely, a whole host of unpleasant and incurable respiratory diseases.

Like laboratory rats in a trap.



With no countryside, no wildlife nearby, a reduced net worth and an impoverished way of life. Not such a great result for East Winch and its neighbours then. That’s known as a win win win win lose situation for the ordinary people of Norfolk!

I do however, have the full story on my father Eric. Eric is dead. If he was still alive today he was undoubtedly have his own story to tell, and his own unique way of expressing himself. And to those of you who still deny the dangers of ingestion of particles into the lungs he would probably simply say this.



His was a life wasted, cut short by a good 5 – 10 years. My question to you is how many others have to suffer before we collectively face up to our responsibilities to future generations, the evidence, and to the truth?


My Dad & I in happier times. A real person, killed by a real threat. Killed by "proper exposure" to asbestos which was well over 40 years ago. He was already unwittingly carrying the seeds of his destruction in his body, when this picture was taken, and possibly before I was even born.

It makes you think, doesn't it?

And by the time you have finished hearing/(reading) this, another 12 people will have died needlessly. How many more have to die? (The answer is blowing in the wind).

A couple of final points:
Asbestos & Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS)

What’s the difference?

They both enter the lungs.

They both Debilitate.

They both KILL.

One is recognized as such by HSE, one has no UK published studies available.
Why not?

What’s the difference?

What is the truth?

“So in answer to whos the culprits??? - the fact is its all of us.”

So if that’s true - what are we going to do about it?

Thank you for your attention.

***
POSTSCRIPT - A FINAL POINT

“It will not settle your mind as you are far to enraged but a little proper research on the issue of sand causing cancer told me this is simply not the case.”

And as for being enraged, that’s not me you need to talk to. That will be Julia Green of Ditchingham Parish Council and her local group.
ENRAGED stands for (Norfolk residents against gravel extraction at Ditchingham)
See the article in EDP 23/04/08. We have a link on our blog.

http://new.edp24.co.uk/search/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&itemid=NOED23%20Apr%202008%2009:01:27:070&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=search

After all, we pride ourselves on doing “a little proper research”!

Air Quality the Priority for the week ahead...

I shall be discussing with the council what Air Quality Testing can be done both at the working quarry sites and on the haul routes.

A quote from "Mortality in the UK industrial silica sand industry:" assessment by T P Brown & L Rushton states in it's conclusions:

"The continual collection of dust measurements in the industry is essential to facilitate the exploration of exposure-response relations that may exist between silica and silicosis, lung cancer, and other diseases."

So you think minerals are more important than people?

I can see from our poll that a number of you have voted to the effect that minerals are more important than people.

Could I ask what the reasons are behind this opinion? Thanks.

RSPB Action Pack Available for Download

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

Response from Campaign for Protection of Rural England (CPRE)

From: CPRE Norfolk
42-46 Bethel Street
Norwich
NR2 1NR

26 March 2008

Minerals Site Allocations, Issues and Options Consultations,

Feb-March 2008

Thank you for contacting CPRE about the Minerals Site Allocations, Issues and Options Consultations and asking us how we intend to respond to this important document.

CPRE has been involved for the last five years in the Examination in Public of the Regional Plan and we have to take account of this Plan and the levels of growth, although we have consistently contested these through the process, and will continue to make our case on this.

It is not possible for CPRE to object/support/comment on all 104 sites and deal with local issues for each, but we believe that the local community is much better placed to do so on specific sites and we would encourage individuals and groups to write to County in response to this consultation.

Below are the principles for site selection that we shall propose:

l. Allocation Sites vs Areas of Search

Do the sites have some firm evidence and estimate of the resource, that is, no Areas of Search, although some might be brought into play at a later stage as alternatives if they meet the criteria below? Within this, look for sites with reserves of a minimum of 0.5 million tonnes, unless an extension to an existing site, and/or a strong candidate for restoration as a habitat creation site.

2. Site Location and Proximity Principle

We would give a higher priority to sites within a reasonable distance to Growth Points (Norwich, Thetford) (regional/national), and Key Centres of Development (King’s Lynn, Yarmouth) (regional); and at a lower level to the larger market towns as identified in Local Development Frameworks as taking a considerable portion of development land.

3. Status of Land

We would avoid sites of national importance for wildlife and landscape, and local for wildlife.

4. Type of Land

As a general principle arable land will become a preferred candidate over other scarcer habitat and landscape types. This is because at the end of the working period it can be restored to arable use. Secondly, as an alternative option and condition on a planning permission, it can be used for habitat creation.

5. Habitat Creation

Indeed some sites could be selected with the driver of the intention to create a different habitat and landscape feature. For example, heathland, grassland, woodland, freshwater reed beds, etc. The type of creation would depend on the geology and hydrogeology of the site, and how best it would fit into the enhancement and development of ecological networks for the county and region.

6. Access and Highways Implications

An important consideration is the ease or lack of it in accessing the main distributor road network. The longer and more difficult it is to achieve this access without having a major impact on the countryside, the less reason for accepting a site.

7. Amenity

CPRE would not want to see sites selected which are close to a major settlement or on top of a village. Local residents are in the best position to comment on the potential impact in terms of noise and light pollution, HGV movements and the loss of valued countryside, walks, etc. We would encourage them to make a response to the consultation with a strong emphasis on how their community would be affected.

CPRE in making their response to the consultation will say again that the level of growth planned for Norfolk and the six county East of England region is simply not sustainable in any sense of the word. The long term housing provision planned, and the associated development, is predicated on large increases of population through net in-migration to the region. This will put a huge strain on our natural resources, and the physical and social infrastructure required to meet this.

The minerals plan is an example of the collateral damage that would result from unprecedented levels of growth. At an extraction rate of 3 million tonnes per year for minerals, how long will it be before we start digging into our most precious and irreplaceable countryside, and behind that, how long before all major mineral deposits are exhausted? Just a few generations it would seem.

We hope CPRE’s Principles for Site Selection, as set out above, will help in your response to the consultation, and we would welcome a copy of the responses from individuals and groups. For further information please contact Dr Ian Shepherd on 01263 713370, or email andianshep@aol.com.

Yours sincerely




James Frost

Branch Director

The children of East Winch say...

"Please don’t build a quarry it's where we play..."

"I don’t want smelly diggers and lorries going past my bungalow all the time"

For those of you in a position to choose if Min40 becomes a preferred site, I would simply say, "LOOK TO YOUR CONSCIENCE!"

East Winch & West Bilney are under threat.

After much pulling out of hair, the photographs taken on location at sites such as Min40, Min58 & Min18 have been put on Flickr are all available for viewing, as well as pictures taken at the live quarry in Ashwicken, and other sites such as Bawsey.

I hope this gives you a sense of what we stand to lose if these proposals are allowed to go ahead.

Also bear in mind that on my visits to Min40 for example, there is continous birdsong from skylarks, and more recently has been visited by migrants from Africa, sand martins, house martins and swallows. Min58 at West Bilney had its share of willow warblers and chiffchaff and whitethroat, as well as yellowhammer.

These are unique wildlife habitats, that deserve our protection, not to be allowed to be destroyed by greed for a few flatscreen TVs.

There is now a slideshow icon on the site and a link to photographs underneath it.

You can view the photos and leave comments. Locate the slideshow button on the Flickr site and sit back and enjoy the pictures of our beautiful countryside. You can contrast those with the scenes of devastation from our surrounding areas.

Thanks to our editorial team for the rich selection.

You may even want to visit the sites yourself.

I don't recommend visiting the live quarries without talking to WBB Minerals first. They have offered to show us round.

New Forum Launched!

We have launched a new forum for the "Save East Winch" Campaign

http://saveeastwinch.freeforums.org/

This is the place to go to air your views

It is open to everyone!

Air Quality Update

Following on from the Leziate meeting, I have been making enquiries as to what air quality testing has been done locally. I have not read the reports in detail yet, though I thought it would be a good idea to leave the correspondence within this article so that you can make your own judgements. Thanks to all those people who have responded in a timely fashion to my requests.

The bottom line is that there is no air quality testing currently being done at any of WBB's quarry sites to my knowledge, unless WBB can confirm otherwise.

Answers already received by Councillor Alistair Beales from questions put via Leziate residents:

Neil – regarding point 1) the Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk is responsible for air quality – specifically Environmental Health. Points 2-5 are covered below. Most of the following is from answers I have already received from questions put via Leziate residents. As follows:

“The Leziate site was considered for emissions of fine particles called PM10 in 2000 which included an Air Quality Monitoring Station being located in the area to measure dust levels and air dispersion modeling was also carried out. The levels of PM10 were below the action limit. The site is also regulated as a Part P Permitted Installation and has conditions controlling emissions of dust.

The Reports are available on line: -

http://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/pdf/Air%20Quality%20-%20Stage%201%20&%202%20-%20Section%2014.pdf

http://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=21848

The Environmental health officer concerned is not aware of any dust complaints from local residents.”

General comments were as follows:

“Dust can be controlled from the extraction site by planning conditions, statutory nuisance and if needed Air Quality Management Area.
Using DEFRA guidance we look more closely if residential dwellings are within 200m, if so then this may lead to exposure to PM10, but this does not mean that the level of dust that would cause harm. Also being rural there may be other sources of PM10 locally meaning that the background level of PM10 is naturally high.
We will make general comments on each site, but until a detailed planning application is submitted it is difficult to determine the exact impact to local residents. Certain issues can be mitigated by the use of conditions etc and until we know what they want to do and how they plan to do it then the impact cannot be fully anticipated.
Dust is controlled from the processing site by Part B permit and if needed Air Quality Management Area.
The main health issue is inhalation of PM10 (fine dust particles). This type of extraction will lead to some dust emissions but as the extraction is below ground level and the material is usually damp, emissions are minimized. However, I have found that the haul route and transportation links can also lead to dust emissions.”

1) Dave Robson - Environmental Health

In summary, yes we have monitored around the WBB Minerals site at Leziate and also carried out air dispersion modeling. This work indicated that there were not any likely breaches of the National Air Quality Standards levels for fine dust (PM10). There are two levels to be considered an annual mean of 40 ug/m3 and a 24 hour mean of 50 um/m3 which must not be exceeded more than 35 times in 12 months. We consider that the levels of dust at nearby residential dwellings, workers or occupational exposure of dust would fall to the Health & Safety Executive remit.

You can read the details in the Air Quality reports which are published on the Council’s website.

http://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/pdf/Air%20Quality%20-%20Stage%201%20&%202%20-%20Section%2014.pdf

and

http://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=21848

Regards

Dave

Dave Robson MCIEH
Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner
Principal Officer -Environmental Quality & Licensing Section
Environmental Health & Housing Department
Tel. 01553 616302


Rob Cranthorne, NCC Planning Department

Dear Mr Paddock

Thank you for your email.

The Environmental Health Officer has a statutory duty under the Environment Act 1995 to monitor air quality. In this case the relevant contact is David Robson dave.robson@west-norfolk.gov.uk at King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council.

The County Council as Mineral Planning Authority, when granting planning permission for minerals developments, imposes planning conditions. These cover a range of matters including control of potential impacts on local amenity which may arise from, for example, noise, odour, and dust and sand blow. In the case of the permission for the WBB Minerals Grandcourt Farm quarry there is a condition, number 7, as follows: measures shall be taken to minimise dust nuisance and sand blow caused by the operations, including spraying of road surfaces, plant area and stockpiles.

The Environmental Health Officer was a consultee on the application, and his response was referred to in the report to the County Planning (Regulatory) Committee. He does not need to attend these committee meetings.

The County Council has a Monitoring and Controlteam which inspects minerals (and waste)sites regularly, and in addition to that, in the event of complaints being received. The WBB Minerals operations in Norfolk have generated very few complaints over many years. Mark Potter is one of the Monitoring officers, and he is familiar with the site and activities on it.

Regards


Rob Cranthorne

My Email to Rob:

Rob

Thanks for taking time out to meet with me last week

A couple of quick questions for you

Following on from our conversation about air quality, I feel that something needs to be put in place as a matter of urgency

Driving back from the sailing club there is a huge pile of sand at WBB’s King’s Lynn Quarry, which could be generating wind blown dust particles and blowing them across the whole village and beyond.

Would you please be able to make enquiries on our behalf and establish:

1) Who is responsible for air quality testing locally

2) What air quality testing (if any) has been done in or around the silica sand quarry sites, at Ashwicken and East Winch

3) How often it is done

4) What actual readings have been taken, and

5) Whether or not those readings confirm that the air quality locally is satisfactory

PS Heather Bolt suggested it was Mark Potter who I assume works for NCC, though I would be interested in establishing the identity of the local environmental health inspector, in particular, the one who was present at the planning application meeting for the land to the West of Grandcourt Farm, Middleton, when planning permission was granted on 7/9/07

Please advise if you can be of assistance