The Sizewell C Project

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.

The Sizewell C Project

Received 04 August 2020
From Peter Palmer

Representation

Although an Aldeburgh Town Councillor this registration is my own personal contribution and should not be taken as representing the views of the Town Council. The consultation process has been long, frustrating and significant issues with the DCO submission remain. I limit this registration submission to those remaining matters which affect Aldeburgh. There are others. DCO itself I urge the inspectorate NOT to proceed with Virtual Hearings as, unless the inspectorate can guarantee the same level of technology interface as the developers for all participants, this will surely disadvantage many. Transport HGV: HGV movement proposals say almost nothing about movements away from the main site. It is not apparent how the proposed freight facility in the south will interact with HGV movements from the northern A12. “Local” deliveries are not controlled. “Local” is not defined. LGV: Small vans and cars have been an on-going concern. Until now these have not been addressed and even now the submission barely acknowledges their existence. For Aldeburgh this is a major issue. It is known that there will be overlapping NSIPs projects where the effects are cumulative. Socioeconomics The Development: The economic assessment essentially just covers the periods of construction and operation. The development will exist in the landscape for much much longer. An assessment that covers the entire life of the development is overdue. The Supply Chain: The developer insists that the Hinkley supply chain will not simply move over to “C”. Why this would not happen is hard to imagine if the costs of “C” are to be significantly less. Other benefits: The developer promotes the skills involved and up-skilling of the local workforce. Much of the money that could be spent locally to do this has already been spent at Hinkley and will not be repeated. Workforce: This number seems to be increasingly elastic. The increase will impact essentially ALL the socioeconomic areas mentioned in previous consultation stages. Re-calibrated compensations for this increase are required in all areas Main Development Site The site’s main issue is that is too small and has led to unacceptable compromises: Pylons: Originally the grid connection cables were underground. This was found to be impossible. The pylons were introduced at added detriment to the visual amenity of the AONB. Coronation Wood: Removal of “B” facilities resulted in the proposed felling of Coronation wood which overturns previous application conditions in which they were used as screening, specifically the “B” dry fuel store. Other issues Potable water and other water supplies. The 25 year decommissioning time is optimistic- there are no prior examples. Other NSIPs projects and the cumulative Traffic and socioeconomic impacts. Euro 5 compliance on HGVs not Euro 6. Flood defences might impact surrounding areas. No mechanism for auditing the “promises” that the developer makes and holding them to account for failing to deliver, except those covered by section 106 agreements.