TASC response to the news that EDF intend to move to the next stage in the planning process A PDF of the response can be downloaded here
 
TASC have written to the planning inspectorate and the local authorities pointing out that the consultation stages have been inadequate.
 
We would like to encourage those of you who have similarly found the planning process to be unsatisfactory to send your personal comments noting your disquiet about the 4 Consultations held by EDF. It would be good if they were your personal experiences. Lack of info, no one to answer your inquiry, missing information, especially if it is near where you live and you do not have enough info ie Yoxford A12/ A1120 junction management. or if you feel the information was misleading or constantly changing.
 
It would be useful if you could email your thoughts to the planning inspectorate (PINs)and and Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk council in the next week or two. The Local Authorities will take comments into account when sending their statutory satisfaction or otherwise to PINs of the Consultations. By also sending to PINS they should recognise the disquiet felt by the Consultees.

E mail addresses for your personal comments to PINs SCC and ESC
 
Lisa Chandler ESC This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Michael Moll SCC This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
 
The Planning Inspectors (PINS) is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  FAO Michele Gregory Sizewell C Case Manager
 
If you wish to send a copy to EDF, their email address is
  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
  FAO Mr Paul Morton SZC Project Director

 

 The TASC email to the Planning Inspectorate:

Pre Application for Sizewell C: Observations, comments and dissatisfaction on lack of information and detail during the EDFE 4 Consultations and before Development Consent Order (DCO).

Consultation Process

TASC feel it is important at this stage in the proceedings and before any DCO is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate to voice our disquiet at the inadequacies of the Consultations carried out by EDFE. The lack of detail and evidence on very many matters leaves us concerned as to how the many varied issues will be dealt with when brought to the Planning Inspectorate. We are concerned that it will entail the Planning Inspectorate imposing a great many conditions. We have featured just a few such concerns in the content of this Paper.

We were told that the new method of considering Infrastructure Applications would hasten the proceedings and the developers would provide enough information during the Consultation Process so as to achieve a comprehensive well considered plan before the DCO was submitted.

This most certainly is not the case with this EDFE Sizewell C (SZC) Plan,

TASC has pointed out at every stage of this process that we do not have the information or evidence for EDFE’s claims. Consultees are still left without even the most basic of information in many instances.

We submit that this renders the process inadequate and invalid.

It would appear that EDFE has not read the Guidance on Pre application Process 2008 and definitely has not adhered to the openness and transparency which allows for Consultees to make proper judgement.

When EDFE does submit its DCO, it is hoped that the Planning Inspectorate takes into consideration our deep dissatisfaction at the way EDFE have avoided the many in-depth questions which have been submitted by many consultees.

We are also worried that many studies which are required to substantiate EdFE’s claims regarding the development have not been available to members of the public.

The process began on November 21st 2012. We have responded to all four Consultations, the last of which was held July to Sept of 2019. Many of the issues we have raised during that time have been raised by others, including Statutory Authorities, NGOs and individuals.

We have attended all exhibitions, and made many requests for additional information. Some of the suggestions and matters in the Consultations have been considered and some changes made but in total, these changes do not substantially alter the fact that information across all four consultation stages has been sparse and insufficient for informed decisions to be drawn.

Major requests and concerns have been ignored or brushed aside. This is particularly true on environmental matters, including the EIA which we are told we will see at DCO stage. To make a proper appraisal, the facts and evidence are key; without them it is just guesswork. It is the developer’s responsibility to provide the consultees with proper researched facts to make sure all matters can be considered thus enabling a good judgement to be made. Many such matters have still not been addressed.

Thank you to TASC members for this response

A PDF of the TASC submission to the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) Nuclear Consultation can be downloaded here

A PDF of the Appendix to theTASC submission can be downloaded here

Just one major problem with the Sizewell C plans is that nuclear new build projects have been largely a financial disaster. Almost every major nuclear project in the West has been plagued by delays and cost overruns: Some delays are in the order decades. Likewise, the cost overruns are of epic proportions. Some new-build projects have had cost overruns that run into billions.
Changing the funding method for the planned Sizewell C to a regulated asset base model would shift the risk of rising costs from EDF to consumers, and could lead to even worse project planning because the existing RAB model would offer little incentive for EDF  to build on-time and on-budget. EDFs  investment is safe regardless, and we wind up footing the bill no matter how incompetently EDF proceeds.

The RAB Consultation ends on MONDAY OCTOBER 14th 2019, so if you wish to submit a response, the link is here:

https://beisgovuk.citizenspace.com/energy-strategy-networks-markets/regulated-asset-base-rab-model/

 

The government has recently carried out a  consultation  to explore views on planning and selecting a site for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) for nuclear waste.

TASC and other groups and individuals have responded:

The overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), published in 2011, set out the Government’s commitment to nuclear power. Taken together, EN-1 and the nuclear National Policy Statement (EN-6) provided the framework for development consent decisions on applications for new nuclear power stations expected to deploy by the end of 2025.

There was an expectation that by now the ‘nuclear renaissance’ would be well underway. However, to date only Hinkley Point C has been granted a development consent order. It is possible that Hinkley will be online by 2025, but there is no chance that any of the other proposed sites will be anywhere near completion, if indeed any are started, by the 2025 deadline. Therefore the government has had to designate a new nuclear National Policy Statement to facilitate nuclear power stations at sites capable of deployment between 2026-2035. The current list of potentially suitable sites (including Sizewell) will be carried through to the new National Policy Statement subject to them meeting the updated siting criteria and environmental assessments.

The purpose of the consultation is ostensibly to seek views and suggestions to enable the government to develop the criteria to assess which sites should be included in the new National Policy Statement.

TASC has written a comprehensive response for the consultation. A pdf of it can be found here.

Tasc also wrote a preamble which can be downloaded here. The text of the preamble is as follows:

29 JULY 2016

Download the report here

Greg Clark, the newly appointed Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has received a report compiled by members of Together Against Sizewell C (TASC), a Leiston-based organisation opposed to the construction of another nuclear plant at Sizewell in Suffolk, which clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that the nuclear component of the energy policy being pursued by the government is unnecessary.

The report argues that the data upon which the original policy was based has changed so fundamentally over the last few years that a review of the National Policy statement as expressed in EN1 is obligatory under Section 6 of the 2008 Planning Act. All government targets can be met without the nuclear component and TASC urges the Secretary of State to re-examine the policy and amend it to remove controversial, costly, dangerous and politically toxic nuclear power from the mix.