{"id":48,"date":"2020-06-02T12:20:56","date_gmt":"2020-06-02T12:20:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/?p=48"},"modified":"2020-07-12T14:55:18","modified_gmt":"2020-07-12T14:55:18","slug":"help-in-creating-your-objection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/2020\/06\/02\/help-in-creating-your-objection\/","title":{"rendered":"Bradwell B’s Stage One Consultation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Bradwell B Stage One consultation deadline was 1st July 2020.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Although the Stage One consultation deadline has now passed, you can still contact your M.P<\/a>, use our poster resource<\/a> to help spread the word, and you can sign the official petition<\/a> against the proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is Bradwell BAN’s response:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Bradwell B Proposals Overall

What are your overall views on our proposals to build a new nuclear power station, Bradwell B, and associated development?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The proposal to build a new nuclear power station in Bradwell on Sea will have a massive detrimental impact to the local area and residents, not just the residents of Bradwell but the wider area of Dengie and beyond.

This proposal dwarfs the previous site and will destroy vast areas of our highly diverse ecology and environment.

There would be continuous noise & light pollution during construction and the operation of the site for the next 60 years.

The disruption of the building of the site (10 years+) will have a massive impact to local residents and also impact their mental health and wellbeing, and this will be exacerbated by the loss to the rural environment, which is one of the reasons many of the residents have moved to this very rural location.

The \u2018improved\u2019 infrastructure that is also part of this consultation would be detrimental to all residents that live on or close to the new road bypasses and proposed Park and Rides or Lorry parks; this will again remove a large amount of the green spaces we currently enjoy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. The Power Station and Environment (Pages 6 to 11)
What are your views on our proposals for the power station
including our approach to landscaping and managing
environmental effect?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When the decommissioning was approved for the current Bradwell \u2018A\u2019 site
we were informed that the site would be returned to a \u2018Green Space\u2019. This
has not been completed, and we are left with the two reactor halls that
are encased. The site area that has been proposed as Bradwell B will
remove a vast expanse of green space that we have left, not only for the
construction of the main power plant site but also with the construction of
the accommodation\/recreational area.

Many people come to this area to enjoy the many and varied walks that
can be completed, such as the sea wall, coastal paths and countryside
walks. This proposal will see a considerable drop in people being able to
enjoy the area and will remove access to these areas as part of the
construction and power generation process.

The proposal is to concrete over large areas of the Dengie and turn the
area from a rural idle into an industrial site the size of which is
incomparable with the area or the current Bradwell A site. Just because
there was a nuclear power station built in the 1950\/60\u2019s there is no
reason why another one should be built here.

The size of the cooling towers will dominate the local skyline and will not
be in keeping with the local area. With the proportions of the towers
being 60m high and 160m wide, there will be no way of softening their
visual impacts. There is no mention within the consultation about the
potential noise levels that these towers will generate, and we can only
imagine that there will be a large amount of noise generated by the fans
etc. required when they are in operation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. People and Jobs (Pages 12 to 13)
What are your views on our approach to people and jobs,
including education, training and local supply chain opportunities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The proposals state that there will be a large volume of workers during
construction and operation, which will be sourced as \u2018Local Jobs\u2019 where
staff would be from a 90-minute journey to the site. We do not think that
90-minutes travel could be classed as local as this would cover areas as
far away as Suffolk, Kent\u2019 London and over to Oxford.

When decommissioning of Bradwell A, a number of companies and
specialists were employed from all over the country. The majority of the
jobs that would be created would not be able to be filled locally. As this is
a national project, we would presume that this will also be the case with
the construction.

No formal details have been provided with regards to the training. The
extra support to the local schools has not been outlined, and none of the
local schools has been contacted in order to gauge the levels that you
would be able to support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Accommodation: Overall Approach (Pages 14 to 15)
What are your views on our emerging accommodation strategy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The accommodation site will provide accommodation for up to 4500
people during the peak building; this is a large number of people that
would be in the area compared to the small number of people that live or
work locally. There are proposals for facilities to be in place on-site. Still,
the additional car movements will have a detrimental impact on the local
community, linked with staff using personal cars, park and ride facilities
and the construction traffic initially utilising the small roads that we
currently have.

The proposed site will link the centre of the village to the waterside area.
The proposal will diminish the look of the area and turn it from a rural
location into an industrial site. The size of the accommodation area will
not be in keeping with the local area, with modular multi-storey
accommodation units that will not be able to be screened adequately.

With a large amount of staff potentially living on-site, there is no mention
within the proposals, of how domestic waste will be removed from the
site; or how this will be dealt with.

Travel to and from the site will increase before the weekend with staff
going home etc. for the weekend.

The proposal will have a detrimental impact on tourism within the area,
who is going to want to come to this lovely area just to look at an
industrial site, modular accommodation blocks and car parks?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Accommodation: Temporary Campus and caravan site (Pages 14
to 15)

Scenario 1: Land west of the existing Bradwell Power Station site.

Do you think the option is Appropriate, Inappropriate, Don\u2019t Know

Scenario 2: Land west of the existing Bradwell Power Station Site
with extension sites.
Do you think this is Appropriate, Inappropriate, Don\u2019t Know<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Scenario One \u2013 Inappropriate
Scenario Two \u2013 Inappropriate

Both scenarios will engulf Bradwell Waterside and link Waterside to the
centre of the Village and Downhall. The size of the \u2018Temporary\u2019 site is vast
and will prove detrimental to all residents and visitors. There is no information for what will happen to the area once construction has been
completed, without this level of information, it is difficult for people to be
able to offer a full response. Both these scenarios would damage the
village setting, have a huge negative impact on tourism in the local area,
increase the fear of crime and criminal damage, and create a loss of
financial benefits to the area due to a downturn in land and house prices
locally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Transport: Overall Approach (Pages 16 to 27)

What are your views on our emerging transport strategy?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There would be a significant increase in the traffic levels along small
country roads\/lanes; this will increase the risk of accidents and incidents
on the roads. With the number of lorry movements c.600 per day, plus
worker movements, park and ride buses etc. this will no doubt have a
massive impact on local people trying to complete their daily tasks.

The strategy includes using the existing rail network to transport staff and
materials to the site. The closest railhead is in Southminster which is
about 6 miles from Bradwell on Sea; this is the branch line of the
Southend on Sea branch line. The line to Wickford is mostly single track
and is not able to cope with the level of movements they currently have
and would not be able to cope with increased traffic on the line. There is
also the impact to the junction at Shenfield, this main hub is already at
capacity and struggles to cope on a daily basis with the level of trains that
pass through the area.

The building or widening of the roads would have a massive impact on the
environment for rural Essex and would concrete over some very special
places locally.

With regards to the marine beach landing facilities, this will impact
people\u2019s access to the sea wall during construction. There are several
impacts to the local fishing industry and related loss of the natural
habitat. The consultation is focused on the oysters that are farmed locally,
but there are a number of other species that are abundant in the River
Blackwater. The movements of supplies utilising the river will have an
impact on this very important local industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. Moving Freight: Sea Transport<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Option One \u2013 Inappropriate
Option Two \u2013 Inappropriate
Option Three \u2013 Inappropriate
Option Four – Inappropriate

The existing river traffic will be impacted by the proposals. We feel that was
proved by other sites where sea transport was proposed; it has not been
effective in reducing the amount of traffic that is using the roads.

Due to the size of the vessel that would be required to be cost-effective
and supply the required amount of supplies to the site, there could be
issues with the river needing to be dredged more regularly; this will have
a detrimental impact on the river traffic and the environmental impacts to
the seabed. There will also be an impact on people wanting to access the
sea wall during construction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. Road Transport: Strategic Route 1: (Pages 20 to 21)

What are your views on Route 1?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We fundamentally disagree with both of the Strategic routes that have
been outlined in the consultation.

The proposals are to concrete over the Dengie peninsula and remove a
large portion of our natural green space.

Utilising by-passes through some of the villages will not reduce the impact
on those areas. There will be increased road noise for all and additional
pollution generated by the extra lorry & car movements. For some
villages, a by-pass could have a detrimental impact on businesses that
rely on passing trade. Building the new roads would potentially move this
flow of traffic from them and cause an impact to small local businesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9. Road Transport: Strategic Route 2 West (Pages 22 to 23)

What are your views on Route 2 West?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Option One – Inappropriate
Option Two \u2013 Inappropriate
Option Three \u2013 Inappropriate

We fundamentally disagree with both of the Strategic routes that have
been outlined in the consultation.

The proposals are to concrete over the Dengie peninsula and remove a
large portion of our natural green space.

Utilising by-passes through some of the villages will not reduce the impact
on those areas. There will be increased road noise for all and additional
pollution generated by the extra lorry & car movements. For some
villages, a by-pass could have a detrimental impact on businesses that
rely on passing trade. Building the new roads would potentially move this
flow of traffic from them and cause an impact to small local businesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10. Road transport: Strategic Route 2 East (Pages 22 to 23)

What are your views on Route 2 East?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Option One \u2013 Inappropriate
Option Two \u2013 Inappropriate
Option Three \u2013 Inappropriate

We fundamentally disagree with both of the Strategic routes that have
been outlined in the consultation.

The proposals are to concrete over the Dengie peninsula and remove a
large portion of our natural green space.

Utilising by-passes through some of the villages will not reduce the impact
on those areas. There will be increased road noise for all and additional
pollution generated by the extra lorry & car movements. For some
villages, a by-pass could have a detrimental impact on businesses that
rely on passing trade. Building the new roads would potentially move this
flow of traffic from them and cause an impact to small local businesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11. Road Transport: Strategic Routes 1 and 2 Bradwell Section
(Pages 20 to 22)

What are your thoughts on Routes 1 and 2?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We fundamentally disagree with both of the Strategic routes that have
been outlined in the consultation.

The proposals are to concrete over the Dengie peninsula and remove a
large portion of our natural green space.

Utilising by-passes through some of the villages will not reduce the impact
on those areas. There will be increased road noise for all and additional
pollution generated by the extra lorry & car movements. For some
villages, a by-pass could have a detrimental impact on businesses that
rely on passing trade. Building the new roads would potentially move this
flow of traffic from them and cause an impact to small local businesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

12. Transport: Freight Management Facility (Pages 24 to 25)

What are your views in our proposals for using a freight
management facility, including in relation to our site search
areas?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

While we see the benefits of a staging post for freight to the site, we do
not feel the impact on the environment and the impact on people lives
locally outweighs the benefit of these sites.

The sites are large and will remove significant amounts of green space
and have an impact on the health and wellbeing of people. There is the
potential for increasing fume levels from the \u2018standing\u2019 lorries etc.
Some of the areas that have been put on the consultation as potential
sites already have issues with lorry movements, and there is no current
way of improving this situation. Therefore adding more lorries through the
area would impact on people\u2019s movements and impact people\u2019s
businesses and daily lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13. Transport: Park and Ride (Pages 26 to 27)

What are your views on our proposals for park and ride facilities, including in relation to our site search areas?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The facilities to provide parking for cars and cycling would be a benefit as
it could reduce the amount of personal car travel to site during
construction etc. and using busses to take people to and from the site.
We feel that this will not be fully utilised by staff unless they are forced to
use it.

Most of the construction teams would potentially need to have equipment
stored on-site if they are going to use this type of transport or they will
have to ensure that they could be able to carry their tools etc. to the site
using a bus. If the journey time from the park and ride sites is longer
than the journey time using their personal transport, they will not use the
site as it will delay them leaving when they need to etc.

As the sites are going to be large in nature, this will have a detrimental
impact on the environment and loss of farm\/green space that will never
be able to be restored.

The sites will no doubt have an impact on the people living near to them
with reduced air quality and increased pollution; measures have not been
supplied to explain how these will be mitigated.

Any benefits of these park & ride sites are far outweighed by the negative
impacts on the surrounding areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

14. Consultation Process

Please let us know if you have any comments or suggestions
about the consultation process.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The initial consultation process was planned very well, and we liked the
fact that you were having face to face workshops to take people through
the proposal and explain what was happening. Most people that are being
consulted are not Nuclear experts or have don\u2019t much expertise with large
scale national projects, so we thought that this was helpful.

Unfortunately, the UK and most countries in the world have been ravaged
by Covid-19 which has had massive impacts to the daily lives of people
and resulted in CGN having to cancel the face to face meetings as per
government guidelines for the gathering of people in one place.

The consultation date has been extended, but we feel that this is not
enough as there are significant amounts of people that have not been
informed, due to the area of stage one consultation being limited to those
in close proximity to the River Blackwater; and has not been extended to
other areas that will be equally impacted by this development.

There has been a continuation of on-site testing during the lockdown
process, which has caused concerns to the people living locally. Planning
applications have been submitted to complete testing and drilling of
boreholes on the site, and people\u2019s perception is that you will continue
with the building process regardless of the results of the consultation
process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Image source: https:\/\/bradwellb.co.uk\/<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Bradwell B Stage One consultation deadline was 1st July 2020. Although the Stage One consultation deadline has now passed, you can still contact your M.P, use our poster resource to help spread the word, and you can sign the official petition against the proposal. Here is Bradwell BAN’s response: 1. Bradwell B Proposals Overall … <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":203,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-take-action","latest_post"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":529,"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48\/revisions\/529"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/203"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}