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 16 September 2018
From Phil Hayton


1) From the outset Vattenfall’s flawed public consultation has been a mixture of obfuscation and half-truths including misleading illustrations of the development sites that were not in Necton at all!
2) The decision to make Necton the chosen spot for the largest development of this type in Europe was made many years ago without local consultation. Had we been asked we would have pointed out how little room is actually available between the archaeology and the radioactively contaminated plane crash site for a development of this size leaving no possibility for future expansion if needed.
3) The area chosen is capped by a thick layer of impervious clay that soon defies any attempts at drainage other than the natural topography via a small stream that becomes a raging torrent within minutes of any storm and consequently floods the road downstream, blocking the 4’ culvert and inundating the properties.
4) The area chosen is also the highest area of the parish making it almost impossible to screen the industrial development from view and making it impossible to avoid the light pollution from the many very high buildings planned. The existing Dudgeon sub-station ignored the Horlock recommendations and our request to avoid shiny silver reflective component’s and bright unfocussed lighting outside so we suspect Vattenfall/Boreas will do the same?
5) Vattenfall’s submission fails to account for the negative impact it will have on the two campsites and the five holiday let businesses within eyesight and earshot that appears to have been missed completely.
6) I have serious doubts that the noise constraints required by statute can be met when the three sub-station’s Dudgeon, Vattenfall & Boreas are all working at full capacity and because of the height of the chosen site mitigation measures will be difficult and expensive to design and build so we ,the parish, suspect they will be ignored.
7) The area chosen is close to an area of natural woodland with several species of bat and reptile not to mention the hedgehogs that appear to have been missed?
8) Following the flawed consultation I am not convinced that adequate measures to avoid fire from the arable crops have been considered, hedges and fences are inadequate on their own without firebreaks, substantially increasing the amount of land required.
9) A major infrastructure project such as this is a vulnerable target for the disaffected terrorist and the chosen site close to the edge of a wood makes it difficult to defend.

In consideration of the points above I as a resident of Necton would like you to ask Vattenfall and The National Grid to consider alternative sites that they have so far neglected to do in any meaningful way so we may return to being a small rural community with little noise or light pollution.