Norfolk Vanguard

The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.

Norfolk Vanguard

Received 03 August 2018
From Jenny Smedley

Representation

1. Vattenfall have failed to do a proper consultation. The only time residents were asked to make comments on choice of substation sites in Necton, it was to an invited audience only. The next day at the open meeting, people were not allowed to give an opinion.
2. Documents relating to the plane crash in Necton uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act shows that excavation could disturb contamination (including radioactive substance) and that any development must get special permission to use the land. Vattenfall have ignored this.
3. The PEIR states that the project is of too massive and scale for the area and cannot be mitigated because of its size.
4. Only one bat survey was carried out on the area and it revealed 2 rare species.
5. Vattenfall has refused to answer questions.
6. Our action group agreed to come to the table with George Freeman and Vattenfall to try and find compromise. Vattenfall refused to attend.
7. No compensation has been offered by Vattenfall to our village.
8. Vattenfall have provably misdirected at their presentations, to mislead opposition. Several people who said they worked for Vattenfall made statements, such as that Boreas would be 'very small', and 'add on', 'need not be worried about'. We know that all along Boreas was intended to match Vanguard in size.
9. Noise - Dudgeon/Statoil who built our current substation, have remained within the operational noise constraints applied by Breckland. However at 4.5 times the size of Dudgeon, it is impossible to imagine that Vanguard and Boreas can do the same, especially as the noise made by Dudgeon has taken up some of the permitted noise.
10. It has become apparent that all decisions were made prior to the consultation, so in fact the consultation has been a complete waste of time, as nothing we have said has had any apparent impact on Vattenfall's decisions.
11. We offered Vattenfall a feasible alternative site - that was more efficient, and more environmental, but they did not give it serious consideration. This has been proven by an email chain accidentally sent to me by the National Grid, which infers that in Vattenfall's response to our alternative suggestion they did not stick to 'factual aspects'.
12. Vattenfall are going to ruin a second farm by building an access road from the A47 through it to the substation site. Then come out of the other side of this site and cable all the way back almost to the A47, and then cross back to the other side of the site to the National Grid, in the process destroying Statoil’s mitigation. This circular route is most inefficient, and brings into play the plane crash site.
13. On paper it seems more efficient to put all infrastructure together and ruin just one area, but in practice the massive sizes proposed, show it isn’t efficient nor environmental. Whilst a village could deal with one project, placing three next to one village is inhumane.