UK public has been misled over plans for nuclear reactors in Essex
Mersea Island Environmental Alliance 22nd July 2020, Mersea Island Environmental Alliance have been investigating discrepancies between the National Policy Statement for Bradwell in Essex and what is ‘proposed’ by CGN/EDF in their Consultation document. CGN/EDF Consultationproposal is for two reactors and in that document, they state that:
“Parts of the Project which are not likely to be influenced by the
consultation include:
“The principle of building a new nuclear power
station on land adjacent to the existing Bradwell power station (as a
matter of Government policy)…and…Technical details including the
proposed deployment of two reactors”.
station on land adjacent to the existing Bradwell power station (as a
matter of Government policy)…and…Technical details including the
proposed deployment of two reactors”.
The National Policy Statement for Bradwell however is for just one reactor. Mersea Island Environmental
Alliance working with The Environmental Law Foundation sought legal
opinion. This is the Barrister’s opinion having reviewed the Consultation
document: “Arguably this is highly misleading as the National Policy
Statement does not set out government policy support for a two-reactor
station, which was not assessed as part of the NPS. Consultees (the public
included) may not be aware that they are entitled to make representations
on this.
Alliance working with The Environmental Law Foundation sought legal
opinion. This is the Barrister’s opinion having reviewed the Consultation
document: “Arguably this is highly misleading as the National Policy
Statement does not set out government policy support for a two-reactor
station, which was not assessed as part of the NPS. Consultees (the public
included) may not be aware that they are entitled to make representations
on this.
This is potentially unlawful since a single reactor station is an
alternative option, and consultees should be made aware that they are
entitled to comment on this: see R. (Moseley) v LB Haringey [2014] UKSC 56.
Section 104(3) of the Planning Act 2008 states: “The Secretary of State
must decide the application in accordance with any relevant national policy
statement, except to the extent that one or more of subsections (4) to (8)
applies.”
alternative option, and consultees should be made aware that they are
entitled to comment on this: see R. (Moseley) v LB Haringey [2014] UKSC 56.
Section 104(3) of the Planning Act 2008 states: “The Secretary of State
must decide the application in accordance with any relevant national policy
statement, except to the extent that one or more of subsections (4) to (8)
applies.”
The relevant NPS is EN-6 (although the Government is in the
process of preparing a new NPS for nuclear power). This states at paragraph
4.1.1 that Bradwell is a site “that the Government has determined are
potentially suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations in
England and Wales before the end of 2025”
process of preparing a new NPS for nuclear power). This states at paragraph
4.1.1 that Bradwell is a site “that the Government has determined are
potentially suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations in
England and Wales before the end of 2025”
The public have been forced to
engage in a mockery of a consultation held at the peak of the Pandemic. To
make matters worse Government are clearly aware of the CGN/EDF remit. The
public have been deliberately mislead! The site selection process for one
reactor and the NPS are being ignored both by the developer and Government.
The public are illegally excluded from comment on the two-reactor proposal.
The latter exclusion courtesy of CGN/EDF who are just the contractor! The
intriguing side to this is how despite the initial enthusiasm from my media
contacts over the developing story it hits the buffers of the editorial
desks and goes no further.
engage in a mockery of a consultation held at the peak of the Pandemic. To
make matters worse Government are clearly aware of the CGN/EDF remit. The
public have been deliberately mislead! The site selection process for one
reactor and the NPS are being ignored both by the developer and Government.
The public are illegally excluded from comment on the two-reactor proposal.
The latter exclusion courtesy of CGN/EDF who are just the contractor! The
intriguing side to this is how despite the initial enthusiasm from my media
contacts over the developing story it hits the buffers of the editorial
desks and goes no further.
https://www.facebook.com/Stop-Nuclear-Dumping-In-Blackwater-Estuary-1473134316325437
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- January 2026 (118)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS



Leave a comment