|Petition - received 29 September 2020|
Subject of petition
Grundisburgh and Culpho Parish Council objects in the strongest possible terms to the two application (DC/20/3284/FUL and DC/20/3362/FUL) submitted for the same site by Hopkins Homes. "We ask councillors of the newly formed East Suffolk District Council to say no to any development on Chapel Field".
|Petition - received 18 September 2020|
Subject of petition
"What independent verification has East Suffolk obtained with regard to EDF Energy’s claims outlined at 1. and 2. below (upon which East Suffolk has relied in your draft Relevant Representation as benefits) that the potential development of Sizewell C twin reactor nuclear power station will:
1. Generate “a £100m pa investment boost to the regional economy during construction and £40m pa during operation”
Given the uncertainty of what share East Suffolk may have from this regional investment and the learning from the NNLAG report published December 2019 where predicted levels of investment were not met and the value of ‘local’ contracts could not be adequately confirmed - at what level of investment would East Suffolk agree that the disbenefits of the project outweighed the benefits, and will East Suffolk Cabinet change this section of the Relevant Representation to reflect this?
2. Meet the government’s criteria of “IROPI” with respect of contributing to the UK’s net zero target?
Given that “IROPI” is described in the NPS as the ‘urgent need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in order to avoid significant, long-term adverse environmental, social and economic consequences, whilst maintaining security of energy supply and preserving public safety and public health, the Government believes that nuclear generation needs to be part of the future low carbon electricity generation mix’ - does East Suffolk Council not regard it as significant that EDF’s own documents reveal Sizewell C will not be positively contributing to net zero targets until 2040, and will East Suffolk Cabinet change this section of the Relevant Representation accordingly?”
Number of signatures: