{"id":586,"date":"2020-10-20T21:29:17","date_gmt":"2020-10-20T21:29:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/?p=586"},"modified":"2020-10-20T21:29:18","modified_gmt":"2020-10-20T21:29:18","slug":"media-update-october-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/2020\/10\/20\/media-update-october-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"Media Update October 2020"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Bradwell B Update from BAN<br><br>The BRB development team held the first of its planned quarterly<br>Community Forum meetings on 6th October. The three-hour online<br>meeting was attended by representatives of various interested groups<br>including local councils, business groups, conservation bodies, BANNG<br>and ourselves. The meeting comprised of feedback on the consultation<br>summary findings by BRB and an opportunity for attendees to pose<br>questions, forming as it does part of BRB\u2019s formal stakeholder<br>engagement strategy.<br><br>It is no surprise that the consultation response, at 50 \u2013 75% higher<br>than Hinckley and Sizewell respectively at stage1, pointed to concerns<br>about every single aspect of BRB\u2019s proposals. The developers see these<br>concerns as \u201copportunities\u201d for improvements moving forward, and<br>that these will be taken into consideration in preparation for the<br>second stage consultation. Initially planned for Feb 2021 the second<br>stage has been pushed back to Qtr. 4 2021 &#8211; possibly due to the<br>overwhelming issues with the site, the delay to the ground<br>investigation works and the scale of local objections. However, this is<br>supposition on my part!<br><br>Unfortunately, BRB is unable (or unwilling) to publish the results of the<br>stage 1 consultation; however, they are mandated to provide evidence<br>to the planning inspectorate during the development consent order<br>(DCO) process, that it has been carried out and their responses to it. At<br>that stage, the planning inspectorate can ask to see evidence of what<br>respondents said.<br>In summary, concerns were highlighted around the following<br><br>elements: Ownership; design &amp; location; negative impact on local jobs<br>(labour market), environmental concerns; businesses and tourism;<br>social impacts; housing market; transport and congestion; strategic<br>routes and early years; marine environment; pollution, air quality &amp;<br>noise; transport hubs; park &amp; rides; wildlife and habitat; consultation<br>process and Covid impacts on it.<br><br>During the questions section, our representative found it necessary to<br>remind the BRB representatives, who showed a lack of empathy and<br>understanding about the impact this project will have, that they<br>needed to be mindful of this and to show more empathy and<br>understanding as to how this affects people\u2019s lives.<br><br>It transpired that BRB had been unaware of the Chelmsford Local Plan<br>and the 1200 homes already planned for South Woodham Ferrers,<br>how they adjust plans around this being a work in progress!<br><br>A working group was in progress in respect to a Social Impact<br>Assessment which is required to be submitted during the final stage of<br>the DCO process (so a couple of years off before we get to see it).<br>BRB stated that it is quite normal for a generating license to be sought<br>and obtained from Ofgem before the DCO process.<br><br>It is no surprise that the real hard questions raised by the consultation<br>and during the meeting were not addressed by BRB who maintained<br>an attitude of this is going ahead and any problems would be<br>addressed during the DCO process.<br><br>Meanwhile you can check out BANNG\u2019s powerful new video on People,<br>Place &amp; Power on our videos page.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bradwell B Update from BAN The BRB development team held the first of its planned quarterlyCommunity Forum meetings on 6th October. The three-hour onlinemeeting was attended by representatives of various interested groupsincluding local councils, business groups, conservation bodies, BANNGand ourselves. The meeting comprised of feedback on the consultationsummary findings by BRB and an opportunity for &hellip; <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":587,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-586","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\/586","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=586"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/586\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":588,"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/586\/revisions\/588"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/587"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/bradwellban.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}