Print

Download as PDF

To Sizewell Nuclear New Build, FREEPOST LON20574, London W1E 3EZ

 

 

 

 

Sizewell C & D Proposed Nuclear Development

 

Submission to the Stage 1 Pre-Application Consultation

On Initial Proposals and Options

 

 

By Peter Lanyon,

3 Spencer Close, Little Plumstead, Norwich NR13 5JE

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

 

 

I have environmental, humanitarian, family and recreational interests in Suffolk Coastal District area. I am not using your questionnaire, because I do not accept that you should so shape my comments, but I shall fit what I provide to what you ask as well as I can.

 

 

 

1. The Sizewell C Proposals

It is misleading of you to call it Sizewell C, since it is two stations, each one much larger than the existing ones. This can only be an attempt to minimise the scale of the proposal; not a good start, since it is so obviously a ruse.

 

You refer to the Government’s identification of the site as “potentially suitable”. This means “capable of becoming suitable depending upon circumstances”. Relevant circumstances that have arisen since the Government’s latest National Policy Statements of July 2011 are:

 

 

2. Proposed Temporary Developments, and 6. Sea Transport

The jetty would cause unpredictable decrease in the stability of the coast. The dredging in connection with it (of which I can find no mention) would exacerbate this and damage fauna and flora. Details of the permanent parts of the jetty are so lacking as to make the entire jetty proposals look furtive and evasive.

 

15. People and Economy

You say you are keen to enable people to make the most of the opportunities arising from the development, while you deliberately omit any invitation to us to comment upon the problems arising from it. We are concerned about the welfare of the area and our descendants in it particularly from 2100 onwards for:

 

16. Consultation Process

You ask do I have any comments about the consultation process so far. I have. It is dishonest. It purports to enable us to comment on all the issues it raises (your Consultation Document, page 2, Scope of Consultation 1.1.12). Then it does not provide spaces for such things as coastal instability and erosion. Yet these issues inevitably involve the “safety, reliability and sustainability over the whole life of the Sizewell C Project”, so you are unjustified in saying “our Objectives are to … Comply with the regulatory requirements and apply company standards” (ibid page 3, 1.2.4).

 

Further, when it was pointed out, I understand by two District Councils, that you had not provided enough information on Coastal Processes, you hurriedly put on a presentation that complacently glossed the fact that very little is known about the processes, but this information was not widely available to the public, and anyway was very late on in the consultation process, when most submissions would already have been made.

 

 

 

Peter Lanyon 1 February 2013

 

CC: Mark Wilson, Sizewell C Case Manager, National Infrastructure Directorate, Temple

Quay House Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN

 

Paul Wood, Sizewell C Project Officer, Planning Department, Suffolk Coastal District Council, Melton Hill, Woodbridge IP12 1AU

Category: Stage 1 Consultation Responses