Representation by Jane Haviland Webster
- Date submitted
- 15 July 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The argument against using a sea delivery facility is extremely weak and unjustified, in my opinion. The impact Of the development on the road network will be irrevocable and have an adverse impact on the wildlife networks in the county. I am unclear about the legal safeguards in place for prohibiting permanent villages being constructed on the sites where employee campuses are being built. The environmental statement was not available for scrutiny during the consultation process. The application for the DCO was submitted during lockdown, for reasons of the pandemic, which has the potential to reduce accessibility for many people to review the documents submitted. It is unclear how the technology for the reactors will be not be obsolete by the time it is constructed. How will the project be affordable. The National position on nuclear high level radioactive waste has not been resolved. - the disadvantages of the project continue to outweigh the advantages, for example with regard to the East Suffolk Climate Emergency and statement by the sizewell c developer that despite the “urgency” for net zero emissions they will not be able to make a positive contribution to reducing net carbon until 2040. - The application lacks detail of carbon emissions during the life of the project, the quantity of concrete that is proposed, (concrete being one of the highest contributors of carbon emissions), mining uranium, processing and transportation of it to site, decommissioning of the development. - The increase in train traffic particularly at night, causing additional noise and vibration through Woodbridge and Melton with no compensation for structural issues and diminishing house values.