Representation by Mrs Catherine Palmer
- Date submitted
- 26 September 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Consultation: Having followed the Sizewell C consultation from the start, many issues had not been addressed adequately or at all when the DCO was submitted. The Inspectorate has accepted the consultation process as being satisfactory. I have issues with the consultation regarding the interpretation that the developer has put on some responses in terms of making subtle changes in emphasis which I regard as “spin”. The obvious example is the pylons which were introduced because the cables could not be undergrounded as initially planned. The universal response to this was NO! no more pylons in the ANOB. This was spun by the developer response to issues of height and numbers. There are other examples of spin most notably about the reactor design being used successfully around the world. Considering the French and Finnish experiences this is dubious. A more recent example is the claim that the developer has saved on space with Sizewell C vs Hinkley Point. The site was chosen by the developer from a list of “suitable” sites as defined by HMG. This site was for the unbuilt second “B” reactor and is significantly smaller than the Hinkley site. The developer has chosen to put two reactors here. This “squeeze” on space has led to such issues as the pylons and in my opinion is no reason for the developer to boost of saving space when in fact land has had to be taken to move “B” facilities as well. From the start a bad choice of site! Other: Transport: The developer only seems to worry about HGV traffic going to the site there no mention of managing traffic from the site. The southern transport facility is a welcome initiative but are HGVS from the North to drive there and then drive back - it doubles trips along the A12. LGV/car traffic had barely been mentioned until the DCO was submitted, although it has been brought up at the last two consultations. The DCO response seems not to even start addressing this issue. For towns like Aldeburgh this is a large concern because of overlapping NSIPs. Socio - Economic: There is no nett benefit calculation over the complete life cycle of the development from spade in ground to last grass laid. Worker numbers keep increasing – no mention of extra mitigation. Environmental: Most mitigation is not evidenced or guaranteed even though there have been similar projects (SZA, SZB) from which mitigation efforts could be judged for efficacy. Nuclear waste: The nuclear waste store on site will be there for probably 200 yrs + – this without any local agreement. 500 words are inadequate to address all remaining issues on such a large, complex project. My notes cover 3000! Conclusion: I believe the DCO does not adequately address the impacts of a project of this size and duration (12years+ construction, 60 years generation and 120+ years of storing spent nuclear fuel, at least until 2130). I therefore believe that the DCO should not be approved as submitted.