Marion Oerton
"The applicants propose that all Hinkley road traffic,including constructiom materials,shoud pass through the heart of Cannington village for a period of probably amounting to several years before any bypass si built. This is unacceptable and is opposed by over 90 per cent of Cannington voters. No such traffic should be allowed until a suitable by pass is provided... Athough the applicants propose eventually build a western bypass for Cannington,this is opposed byover three quarters of Cannington voters. It would do nothing to reduce traffic on existing roads leading to Cannington, which are not adequate to cope with it,and are alllready prone to accidents, or on the existing Class C country road between Cannington and Hinkley.. Wat is needed is a bypass starting at Dunball and ending close to Hinklley itself. This could be a haul road dedicated to Hinkley traffic. The reasons advanced against this by the applicants are inconvincing and the interests of safety demand it, because it would provide an indepeendent means of access to the power station in th event of an emergency. It could be disastrous if the access needed to cope with an emergency at Hinkley were to depend wholly on the existing road system."

Richard Oerton
"(1) The applicants propose that all Hinkley road traffic, including construction materials, should pass through the heart of Cannington village for a period probably amounting to several years before any bypass is built. This is unacceptable and is opposed by over 90 per cent. of Cannington voters. No such traffic should be permitted until a suitable bypass is provided. (2) Although the applicants propose eventually to build a western bypass for Cannington, this is opposed by over three quarters of Cannington voters. It would do nothing to reduce traffic on existing roads leading to Cannington, which are not adequate to cope with it and are already prone to accidents, or on the existing Class C country road between Cannington and Hinkley. (3) What is needed is a bypass starting at Dunball and ending close to Hinkley itself. This should be a haul road dedicated to Hinkley traffic. The reasons advanced against this by the applicants are unconvincing and the interests of safety demand it, because it would provide an independent means of access to the power station in the event of an emergency . It could be disastrous if the access needed to cope with an emergency at Hinkley were to depend wholly of the existing road system."

pcah (Parents Concerned About Hinkley)
"PCAH is an NGO which was set up in about 1994 by residents in and around Burnham-on-Sea who were concerned about the extent of public health damage they had experienced since the Hinkley Point nuclear site became operational in 1965. PCAH is associated with Stop Hinkley, another NGO based in Bridgwater. We are objecting to the development of two EDF EPR nuclear reactors known as Hinkley C on the basis of published scientific and epidemiological studies linking widespread public health damage over the past 45 years with discharges from the existing Hinkley A and B sites. NNBGenCo's application states that each EPR reactor would have a core stack, ie a chimney directly venting poisonous radioactive gases from the reactor cores. In addition every time refuelling took place, the reactors would be given a blowthrough; it is now acknowledged that refuelling of existing reactors causes peaks in recorded cancer and other illness incidence in the exposed communities. Public health would be put at additional risk throughout the proposed on site storage of spent fuel for 160 years. There are no plans to store or dispose of spent fuel either from existing nuclear sites or for the proposed Hinkley C. The proposal does not comply with the EU requirement not to expose future generations to health risks. It acknowledges that there would be discharges of harmful radionucleides but claims that these would be managed "by use of best available techniques". That is not acceptable; any industry must be managed with safety of employees and exposed communities as the first and only criterion. Not to comply is in contravention of the Human Rights Act and would ipso facto render the developer in breach of the UK's Corporate Manslaughter Legislation."

Sue Flint
"Representation to IPC re Hinkley Point application I urge the rejection of this application because of the unreliability of applicant, EDF (Energie de France). EDF seems not to know the correct unit in which to measure its prime commodity: The company EDF is therefore UNRELIABLE. An advert in the Metro paper quotes the unit as kilowatts per hour instead of the correct kilowatt hour. The company failed to check measurements made by its sub-contractor Amec on the units in which to measure soil radioactivity. In many sheets of such measurements there was confusion of the units in which gamma activity was recorded. It should not be left for the user of these tables to have to guess which unit is intended. The company is therefore UNRELIABLE. The proposer, EDF, and its mentor DECC prefer to deny any inconvenient truth: A letter from members of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CORWM) of 20th November 2009 to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change express concern about serious misrepresentation of recommendations in the draft National Policy Statement on Nuclear Energy The Government says it is satisfied that effective arrangements will exist to manage and dispose of the waste that will be produced from new nuclear power stations. CoRWM was quite clear: new build wastes would extend the timescales for implementation, possibly for very long, but essentially unknowable, future periods. Should a new build programme be introduced, in CoRWM’s view it would require a quite separate process to test and validate proposals for the management of the wastes arising. In accepting the Government’s conclusion EDF has shown itself to be UNRELIABLE. Using data supplied by EDF in its planning application for preliminary works and figures for the relative abundance of uranium isotopes   and   were able to show that the soil of the application site had been contaminated by enriched uranium, the only plausible source of which must have been the adjacent power station. Using that same data I was able to confirm their conclusion. By simply denying and ignoring this matter the applicant EDF has again shown itself to be UNRELIABLE. On 5 December 2011 BBC news reported that Greenpeace France environmental activists had broken into a French nuclear power station, to highlight the "vulnerability" of atomic sites in France, prompting a security alert. Greenpeace says there is no such thing as safe nuclear power. If well-intentioned activists can enter an EDF power station than so also might terrorists. Its inability to secure that station makes EDF UNRELIABLE. IPC carries a great responsibility which I trust will be exercised without fear or favour. I consider that the best decisions are made on the most information and on accurate evidence. From what I have learnt of EDF and its application if the IPC accepts EDF’s submission it is likely to make a poor and maybe dangerous decision. In view of the unreliability of the applicant I consider that the IPC should reject this application."

Mark Jackson
"I welcome the jobs and investment into the area and support the contribution that this nuclear power station will make to meeting the UK's carbon emmission reduction targets. I consider that the benefits to increased energy security that this proposal will bring will also outweigh any perceived or actual disbenefits to the environment, during construction and during the power station's operational life."

Iren Gill
"Nuclear power is extremely dangerous, as Fukushima and Chertnobyl - as well as the cancer epidemics in the vicinity of existing nuclear power stations - show. I am particularly concerned at the suggestion that the French company EDF are being considered for this contract - at British taxpayers' cost."

Brian Jones
"Hinkley Point lies on the Bristol Channel, which has the second highest tidal bore in the world (under normal circumstances). I am not convinced that the proposed nuclear power station can be built to a specification that would withstand a Fukushima-style earthquake-followed-by-tsunami scenario. I do not believe that the proposed design has passed safety requirements on paper, and so believe that no decision should be made until the design has passed all safety requirements on paper - including any new recommendations that may follow from the Fukushima incident, and including the ability to withstand a direct collision with a hi-jacked airliner (as happened at the twin towers). I am not convinved that emergency evacuation and relocation plans have been developed, should this need to happen following a catastrophic accident at the proposed plant. I am unconvinced that sufficient information is known about the potential health effects of additional low level radiation leaks during normal operation of the proposed plant. I am unconvinced that an adequate plan exists to cater for the waste that the porposed plan will create, some of which may have to be safely stored away from the environment for longer than western civilisation has existed."

David L Preece
"I wish to register my interest in being able to comment and take part in the IPC examination of this Application. I will however submit my comments, when I have more time this week to condence them to 500 words. If this is acceptable at this time. Regards DL Preece. Up until May 2011, i was for the last 8 years an Elected SDC Councillor, and have been involved with this Applicacion by EDFE, from its initial stages, as also a Member of SDC Planning / Scrutiny Commitee's. Therefore, i have the neccessary, insight with regard the complexities of this Application. Also, I am and been involved in the other Submission, with regard to the Routing of the Cabling from Hinkley to Seabanks in Glos, under the Independant Forums, that are looking into National Grids Planned Preferred Routes. My main concerns with regard to EDFE.Application are as Follows: BRIDGWATER BY-PASS - DISMISSED AS NOT NEEDED BY EDFE, Without Proper Reasons or Detailed Explaination as to how they reached those Conclusions. Campus Accomadation Off Site A & C Bath Road Innovia, and College Way Rugby Club Training Pitch. ( Impact on Bath Road Traffic, ie: College Students, daily attendance, already a problem at peak hours, an extra 1000+ EDFE Employed Contracted Workers residing in the " Sites. Most of them, I'm sure will drive to Bridgwater, from their Homes, whereever that may be in the Country. Is there sufficient car parking on these Sites to Accom these vehicles.? Trying to look at the supplied Mapping either in the Applications Folders, or on Laptop, definition and enlargment is almost impossible, to desipher, a synic would believe this to be what was meant. The actual font format is probably 6 or less, and I wear good contact lenses to aid my vision, a magnifying glass is needed. Then there is the problem, of what these workers do in their personal time, ie drive where they wish to, and when of course. there seems to be little or no thought to contributing , or providing leisure facilities, out side of the Campuses, therefore making the EDFE Campus Workers, alianated from the Bridgwater Community, of which they should be a part of. This can also be said for the Hinkley C On- Site Campus, those inhabitants, with without doubt, be coming into Bridgwater for Leisure. An additional 510 workers. for upto 10 years. My Main concern though is the lack of Provision for Bridgwater By-Pass, this was a proposal put forward, when Hinkley C was first muted, back in the 1980 's as essential for a New Nuclear Power Station to be Added to the Existing Site, So it can only be down to Cost that EDFE , have negaited this as unesseccary and unwanted. I do not believe they have given Proper and Due Diligence to this Aspect of the Application. Further more, whilst the Minister in Government will have the final say, with regard to this Application, I believe the Highways Aspect, should be Overseen, by SCC Highways, with the Imput of Sedgemoor District & West Somerset District Councils approval, with regard to Highway Impact and Local 106 Agreements, so that EDFE, are accountable to Local People. The Final Planning Consent will be given at Government level. The whole Consultation Process, was a battle, between us Councillors, at the time, EDFE and the Public So Called Consulatation Process, with information having to be dragged out 'Piecemeal' from EDFE Staff, during meetings. From, the very first, meeting with   ,   and their Inhouse Team, it became apparhent, that their aim was to divide, each Community, for their perspective, and offer solutions to one group whilst totally ignoring other concerns. ie: Cannington By-Pass announced from the first meetings proposals for possible routing...... Nothing for Bridgwater's Traffic Problems.... I think you have an Idea of the Concerns that I and many others have, with regard to this EDFE Application. Resolve this problem, by building a new bridge across the River Parrett, not at Dunball, but just along the A38 towards the Car Auction Centre, there is a Drove leading from the A38 to the old unused either Shell/ BP Oil Companies Wharf, on the rivers bank. A bridge could be built across from this location to Combwich, or Cannington, or indeed to connect to EDFE proposed Wharf on Hinkleys C Site. They also are planning for a Freight Consolidation Depot @ Dunball. So this would eliviate, all the extra Goods / HGV Traffic having to come into Bridgwater via Bristol Rd and the NDR to conect with Quantock Road PinchPoint Roundabout. Regards David L Preece"

Openreach
"Openreach (BT plc) to retain its statutory rights under the relevent legislation in respect to diversions of its apparatus affected either by the develpment or highway alterations, as outlined within the Notice of Acceptance of Application for a Development Consent Order. Various communications by EDF or its appointed Consultants have already been received in this office for either C3 or C4 enquiries to provide estimated costs for the relocation of our apparatus that may be affected and require alteration."

John Harrison
"I have no objections to the development of Hinkley Point C provided that sufficient infrastructure is put in place to accomodate the large volumes of additional traffic arround Bridgwater. The proposed freight transportation and employee traffic will only add to the already conjested roads around Bridgwater and cause chaos and misery to local residents. The development should not be approved without consideration of a Northern ByPass from the Exit at Junction 23 of the M5 which would also cease the need for a ByPass at Cannington."

Peter Malim OBE
"I am not against Nuclear Power, and understand the significance of NPS-1 & -6. I live less than 1km from the site and less than 100m from the C182. I am Stogursey Parish Council's focal point for HPC, so I have been intimately involved in the Consultation and the Jetty Inquiry. I sit on the Community, Transport and Main Site Neighbourhood Forums. My concerns are: 1. The volume of traffic on the C182 at unsocial hours, leading to sleep problems 2. The lack of improvements planned for the C182 junctions 3. The route HGVs will take from the west, and the need to avoid country lanes 4. The timing of the availability of Cannington Bypass 5. Disruption from noise generated by night time and weekend working 6. Problems caused locally by 510 workers living on campus swamping local facilities 7. Impact on health from the stress of the construction work and traffic, and effect of locally based workers swamping local health facilities 8. Lack of adequacy of Obligations and Requirements proposed by EDF"

Fabian Frenzel
"I am concerned about the potential dangerous impact of nuclear radiation on my and other people's health. I am furthermore concerned about limited planning in place in case of an accident. I believe not enough consideration has been given to the dangers of nuclear power."

Peter Cook
"My wife and I moved to Combwich fifteen years ago in order to achieve a 'quieter' life in the country. When the first plans for Hinkley C were put forward, there was horror that the village would be turned into an Industrial Area. This has to some extend been molified but there are still many concerns that the EDF proposals are of such an extent that the village, certainly in my life time, will never recover its present status. The planning to use a flood plain for the storage of loads is unacceptable with the inherrent noiuse and disruption to the village. My wife and I firmly believe that the best solution is for EDF to use existing docks at Dunball and build a NEW road straight to Hinkley Point that would bypass Bridgwater and other villages. This NEW road, with access only to those employed at the site is the best way forward. On the details concerning public information events....there is NO village hall in Otterhampton, but in Combwich itself."

Alex Reed
"I would like to draw attention to the poor transport arrangements in regard to this application. Électricité de France has not made full consideration for the impact that will take place on the local roads, and in particular the village of Cannington. Électricité de France has been very dismissive of the calls for a by-pass around Bridgwater, and they have not been able to provide correct and accurate data regards “Their” traffic modelling. They have not listened to the concerns of the local authorities let alone the residents. Indeed the local authorities have stressed on more than one occasion that the information supplied has been inadequate. There is also concern that in the light of the Fukushima Diiachi incident; if there is an emergency regards the Hinkley Point complex, there will be serious problems. Access will need to be paramount should there be a nuclear accident, and there will be no evacuation route available for mankind. There is one single route out to the power station, and that will take traffic through a busy town and a small village. The proposal of wet storage of nuclear waste for 160 years may be superseded by a new government initiative already mooted by government, which will evolve into off-site storage, and the existing road network will not be able to handle transport of such scale. As your body’s principal objective is as per your title, i.e. Infrastructure, I suggest there are serious failings with regards to said infrastructure, in particular regards transport. To summarise the above, Électricité de France have not been cooperative with regard to the local population when it comes to the effects upon the community in relation to transport issues."

Rose E Reed
"Concerns regards. •Lack of and poor road facilities in the area, and to the power station •Safety for workers and population should there be a nuclear emergency due to inadequate roads •Lack of concern demonstrated by EdF in relation to the effects the build will have on the local area. •Poor and one-sided information given by EdF, it is all about them! •Recent reports have mentioned a national disposal facility for nuclear waste. The current road network will not be able to take the capacity volume with regard to potential vessel size used for such removal. I Disagree with the proposal in its present form"

Peter Farmery
"1. We do not oppose the building of the power station. 2. We oppose the on-site hostel. 3. We oppose 24/7 hours working. 4. We oppose any additional traffic being routed via the local lanes. 5. We want the southern boundary to be "rolled back" as a first priority. 6. We want money spent on the C182 road to facilitate local traffic."

David Landy
"Introduction Nuclear power is neither cheap, nor clean, nor safe, as it's proponents frequently claim. In fact, nuclear power it is expensive, dirty and dangerous, and is unnecessary in building a carbon-neutral fuel economy. Furthermore, EDF is not a fit and proper company to run a nuclear power station. 1. Expensive Construction The construction costs of the first two PWRs currently under construction by EDF in France and Finland have run over-budget by several billions of Euros each. They are both many years behind schedule. Waste No permanent solution for the disposal of high-level waste has been agreed, so the cost of nuclear waste disposal is unknown, and cannot be quantified. Government guarantees to provide a cost ceiling to the nuclear industry for waste disposal are an unfair subsidy, and would simply transfer the financial burden of responsibility to the taxpayer (as is currently the case with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority). Accidents The clean-up costs of any accidents are vast, unpredictable, vast, and would be borne by the taxpayer. 2. Dangerous There have been three catastrophic accidents in the history of nuclear power: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. There has also been one very serious accident in the UK – the Windscale Fire – and numerous other accidents around the world. Contrary to the view promulgated in the media and elsewhere, the root cause of the Fukushima meltdown was poor maintenance standards, as evidenced by a whistle-blower inside the industry. When the earthquake struck, poorly maintained cooling pipes disintegrated, critically damaging the cooling system, leading to an inevitable meltdown. It is important to remember that the Fukushima accident occurred in a first-world economy, with supervision by both government and IAEA. To those who say that the UK is not an earthquake zone, it is worth bearing in mind that St Michael’s church atop Glastonbury Tor was destroyed by an earthquake in the Middle Ages, leaving just the iconic tower we see today. As recently as July 2011, an accident at an EDF facility in Tricastin, near Avignon, France, contaminated 100 workers – the highest number of workers to be collectively contaminated in French nuclear history. (And Tricastin, which houses four reactors, suffered another leak earlier that month at a separate treatment facility when 74kg of liquid containing unenriched uranium was spilled.) It is hard to see how any regulatory system could therefore provide any assurance that accidents will not happen: all industrial processes are run by human beings, and all human beings are fallible. Unfortunately, with nuclear power, the consequences can be catastrophic. 3. Pollution Uranium-238 Pollution The EDF soil sample study revealed evidence of Uranium-238 pollution on the proposed Hinkley C site. The study by the Environment Agency purporting to refute these claims only served to deepen the controversy. I will be presenting evidence to show that the EDF and EA studies are both critically flawed, but in any event, show the presence of enriched Uranium with a very high degree of certainty. Burnham-on-Sea Cancer Hotspot A credible volunteer-led study has linked Hinkley Point to a cancer hotspot at Burnham-on-Sea. Government agencies have refused to replicate the study and have withheld the data that could support or refute it. (They have simply criticised the people who ran the study. Nice.) 4. Unfit Incompetent Ofgem recently criticised EDF both for the number of complaints it is receiving from customers (rising by a whopping 35% in one year), and for the way complaints are being handled. EDF is now officially Britain’s most complained about power company. Untrustworthy In November 2011, a French court fined energy giant EDF 1.5 million Euros (£1.3 million) and sent two of its staff to jail for spying on Greenpeace campaigners. In December 2011, it was revealed that the UK government had secretly shared court papers with EDF, in what appears to be an abuse of process (the papers should properly have been obtained by EDF through the court). EDF claim to support a mixed fuel economy involving nuclear, wind, and other renewables. However they made a point of purchasing the land at Hinkley that had been earmarked for wind farm, thus rendering that development impossible. 5. Viable Alternatives Friends of the Earth have proposed “Tidal Lagoons” in the Severn estuary as an effective alternative to both nuclear power, and to the Severn barrage. Such lagoons would generate more power than Hinkley C, with low environmental impact, predictable costs, and no long-term waste problem. Sources EDF fined for spying on Greenpeace nuclear campaign http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15683090 UK government shared intelligence with nuclear industry, documents show http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/05/uk-government-intelligence-nuclear-industry Watchdog fury at EDF call centre meltdown likely to result in massive fines http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2060713/Watchdog-fury-EDF-centre-meltdown-likely-result-massive-fines.html?ito=feeds-newsxml French nuclear leak prompts urgent security review http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2454654/French-nuclear-leak-prompts-urgent-security-review.html Problems at EDF's French nuclear site raise fears of UK energy delays http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8650653/Problems-at-EDFs-French-nuclear-site-raise-fears-of-UK-energy-delays.html A Severn barrage or tidal lagoons? www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/severn_barrage_lagoons.pdf EDF buy rights to Hinkley wind farm http://www.burnhamandhighbridgeweeklynews.co.uk/news/2278053.edf_buy_rights_to_hinkley_wind_farm/"

Upton Parish Council
"Upton Parish Council is concerned regarding additional traffic through the village of Upton, especially if there is to be a park and ride near Tropiquaria at Washford Cross. The problem is that cars and lorries coming to and from Hinkley in the Tiverton/Barnstaple direction, especially during the construction phase when workers and raw materials will be coming from a wide catchment area, will use the B3190 as a useful short cut through our village. In Upton many of the houses are by the side of the main road, which being straight is a problem to get traffic to slow down to the required 40 mph. We have raised health and safety concerns for walkers on the road due to the speed of traffic, any increase in traffic would cause a problem."

Dr David W Temple
"I am concerned about the disruption that will be caused to the village of Cannington by the process of building Hinkley "C" and in particular the traffic chaos that will be caused in   , the road I live in. Rodway is the only road from Cannington for all Hinkley Point traffic until bypasses are built. The proposals for bypass roads are in themselves totally inadequate and no bypass will be completed before work starts on the construction of the power station. I believe that a bypass for Bridgwater is needed to prevent that town from being saturated by traffic. The town of Bridgwater, the A39 road to Cannington and the village of Cannington itself cannot cope with holiday traffic at present and tinkering about with major road junctions will have no useful effect. Adequate bypassing is needed, preferably from M5 junction 23 directly to the Hinkley Point site. This, and only this, will avoid construction traffic problems. The proposed eastern bypass to Cannington will help the village but in itself will add to congestion in Bridgwater and on the A39. A bypass is needed ... but not there. The eastern bypass, referred to above, is in itself too close to the village centre and should be relocated further out where it would not cut Brymoor School grounds in half."

Ian Liddell-Grainger MP
"I am the Member of Parliament for the area in which this development is proposed. It is my responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents about the plans."

Mr V E Goss
"The Transport Plan is seriously flawed. It will bring major disruption to Cannington village and will seriously affect the health and welfare of all villagers. The proposed bypass must be completed before any further work is allowed to go ahead. EDF has not listened to or taken on board any representations made by Somerset County Council, Sedgemoor District Council, Cannington Parish Council or individual responses made by the villagers. They have not been prepared to negotiate any bypass proposals to date."

Road Haulage Association
"Lack of consultation / involvement security issues traffic management issues lack of communication / Planning with the haulage industry general lack of involvement and the impact on the haulage industry road infrastructure and environmental impact of traffic"

Lesley J D Flash
"                                                    * Extremely concerned noise and light pollution; current remediation works at HPC to E, and large & extended outage at HPB make it clear that works on HPC to N, W & E, and S (traffic) will be severely intrusive upon any activity in the open air at any and every hour. EdF proposed mitigation does not address this adequately; Neighborhood Support Scheme addresses indoor existence only. "Stogursey will suffer greatly" - Mr. H. Cadoux-Hudson of EdF *24/7 working means there will be no respite from any of this for ten years or more. *On-site hostel much too large, much too close, much too intrusive. Further noise, light & traffic pollution generated near and through hamlet by service personnel and delivery. Hostel will be an exclusive ghetto, with privileges invidious in a modest rural area and of no social or economic benefit to host parish. 'Shared leisure facilities' are use of 5-a-side pitches - only. Better to have workers integrated in dispersed, organic fashion to invigorate and support local communities. *Loss of PROWs & landscape close to village, loss of rural amenity for everybody without adeqaute or commensurate recompense or replacement is a terrible loss in a rural community where the only wealth has been natural beauty, tranquility and close community. Progressive roll-back of boundaries would help to mitigate despair. "A community in grief" Mr Hergen Haye - DECC *Already nearly half the local hamlet community has registered for Property Price Support Scheme; rupture and disintegration of community and social continuity seriously damaging to well-being locally. EdF consultation one-way only; fails to recognise value to parishioners of local character and way-of-life, obligation as 'good neighbour' to share in & support local initiatives, S106 money notwithstanding. "We are the collateral damage" - Stogursey resident; "Yes" - Mr Hergen Haye *Traffic on local road will make access to closest urban centre extremely difficult and congested; local road junctions dangerous and rural life (no bus; fuel prices) even more expensive and under-resourced. *Should there be an emergency, the evacuation...of HPB, outage workers if present, HPC shifts, proposed hostel and parish residents, with traffic already on the roads at the point at which the emergency is declared, along the one C road and the three or four country lanes to reach the only A road...will be unholy if not impossible. One crash would gridlock everything. As HPB ages longer outages and possible emergencies are more likely. *No legacy benefits remotely comparable to development construction impact, operational impact (visual, industrial light & noise) and waste storage impact. *Imprecisions, disregarding of relevance of local feed-back and errors of fact in documents e.g. Stogursey Hamlets Health Questionnaire gives100 households; there are about 200."

Stockland-Bristol Parish Meeting
"As the Chairman of the adjacent Parish, I have been instructed, by resolution, to register and make representations regarding the Traffic and noise from this proposed development"

Mr Michael Caswell
"As a resident living in the next Parish I am Very concerned about the Traffic and noise being generated by this proposal."

John Busby
"The application should be refused or deferred until an EPR has been successfully commissioned after 2014. The application is specific to the EPR, which may be withdrawn and substituted by a Franco-Chinese version of the smaller ATMEA-1. If so it should be deemed that the appication has failed and a new application to be submitted. Planning consent to be withheld until NNBGenCo has finances in place sufficient to cover an extended building period, usually ten years. (OL3 in Finland is taking more than 11 years from contract signing) Planning consent to be withheld until ONR is satisfied that the additional safeguards requested post-Fukushima by the Chief Nuclear Inspector have been incorporated in the design and specification of the EPR. Planning consent to be withheld until a mechanism for collecting adequate nuclear liability funds has been submitted by NNBGenCo and considered by the IPC as satisfactory and will ensure no cost to the UK Treasury. The company structure is unable to cover its liabilities and such should be underwritten by the French State, as the majority owner of NNBGenCo. My ability to address the issues above can be confirmed by reference to my website, which contains my CV and includes a linked list of my articles on energy subjects. I have recently reviewed the safety issues post-Fukushima with the GDA staff in HSE HQ and am well versed in the issues post-TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima. I would like to discuss the safety issues with the IPC http://www.after-oil.co.uk and .../articles.htm"

John Roberts
"I live in a village close to the main roads leading from the M5 motorway to the proposed Hinckley C site. I am extremely concerned about the infrastructure plans submitted by EDF and consider these to be ill judged and a complete underestimation of the problems that will be caused by construction traffic initially and the increasing traffic volumes generally as time goes by. It is already difficult to exit our village onto the NDR already and this situation will only get worse. The congestion and gridlock in and around Bridgwater will be exacerbated by the project and EDF are ignoring this in order to save money."

Valerie Bannister
"The proposed access roads are inadequate and present a very real potential danger, particularly once the power station is up and running. This because an accident on the A39 east of Cannington (four such in the last four years, each time the road completely closed for between 5 and 6+ hours) could leave end-of-shift workers having to carry on for some hours. Resultant tiredness is when small slips can lead to great catastrophes. EDF's proposed emergency alternative route - Taunton/Williton - even without itself becoming snarled up, would take well over an hour of driving. Past experience shows that this route, and the small lanes, quickly become congealed and take some time to disentangle even after the A39 is re-opened. The possible roundabout at Sandford Corner would not remove accident risk, as only two of the above mentioned incidents involved vehicles coming onto or across the A39. On a wider view, the A38 from both junctions 23 and 24 of M5 already bottlenecks with tailbacks for most of the day. Bridgwater town is congested and with only three roads crossing the River Parrett (one of these of limited use due to collapse of river wall/narrow streets/sharp bends). All traffic for Hinkley (and planned associated work at Combwich) has to pass through the village of Cannington. Narrow roads, sharp bend (at War Memorial/Rods Hill) mean (already, in preliminary works) great inconvenience to pedestrians and local drivers and serious risk of property damage (particularly to older and listed buildings) from HGV vibration. The small modifications of some juntions proposed by EDF will be quite inadequate to deal with these problems - and pose their own problems during construction. The answer is a "works only" road running from near J23 to Hinkley. This need not run through any other village and would give EDF an uninterrupted access, with the other roads as fall-back if needed. It also has the advantage of uninterrupted access from Hinkley to the main line railway (the former Dunball halt could be reopened, if required) giving future options for waste removal or other contingencies."

Richard Rivans
"I disagree with this planning application as i object to the new nuclear policies.They are unnecessary as we now have clean green energy technologies which can take its place. Added to this,EDF are destroying large ares of land prior to full planning consent. I have local knowledge of the area as i have family living there."

Val Williams
"I believe the proposed Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station would be a grave mistake. Road access is restricted and often blocked by accidents. In the event of an accident at the proposed power station this could prove disastrous. I have friends living in the area."

Sam Henson
"I whole heartily agree with the proposal to construct two new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point. My only disappointment is that there are not yet plans to build more! This will provide significant benefits to the economy of the United Kingdom, which is in a particularly bad state at this present time. The new power stations will provide well needed employment locally and nationally in areas that are not the tertiary sector. Lastly it is my personal opinion that nuclear power represents the ONLY secure energy source without harmful emissions for this country. In terms of local knowledge, I resided for a period at Stugersey near by in 2006/7 while working at Hinkley Point B power station."

Michael Solomon
"I live in Wembdon and am concerned that the planned construction may have a detrimental effect my immediate environment and day to day quality of life."

Wembdon Parish Council
"I am Chairman of the Parish Council and represent the community of Wembdon. I am concerned that the plans for a new power station will impact traffic and the general quality of life for my community Wembdon Parish Council believes that the current transport proposals have not been considered sufficiently. The proposals as they stand would create even longer traffic queues in Bridgwater than we already suffer. The current roads are inadequate for the extra heavy transport that will be using it during construction. Specific traffic proposals with regard to 3 traffic junctions on the edge of Wembdon are likely to have the effect of sending lots more traffic through the village and creating a rat run. This Council therefore supports a Northern Bridgwater bypass and we do not believe EDF has considered this option seriously."

Bill Revans
"The application will cause unacceptable pressure on the road infrastructure in the Bridgwater Area, from Junctions 24 & 23 through to the Hinkley Point site. In my home town of North Petherton, Junction 24 will see a further massive increase in traffic due to this development, associated initiatives such as the "Bridgwater Gateway proposal" and new housing at Stockmoor, Wilstock and West Monkton. This junction regularly gridlocks now, before the start of construction.EDF have submitted no plans for this junction and no attempt made to take a holistic view of the impacts of all these developments. Traffic flows in Bridgwater are notoriously poor and this town will be further gridlocked by the huge increase in traffic movements in the vicinity. EDF claim a few minor junction changes will ameliorate the effects of their traffic. Local residents wholeheartedly disagree and support for a Northern by-pass for Bridgwater is widespread. EDF arrogantly refuse to countenance this. There are no alternative routes for most of the journey, other than minor single track country lanes and any incident will result in serious repercussions for those involved and the local area. The application should be rejected on the grounds that they have failed to consider the transport issues associated with the scheme and they should be invited to re-submit when they have completed a realistic traffic impact study."

Anthony J Bullen
"1. Transport. Construction and Operational Impacts for the Road Network and HPC Developments. 1.1 I have read 6.3 to 6.4.20 of the Development Consent Order Application. Attended two consultation exhibitions by EDF. Read the comments by others persons and organisations. 1.2 EDF has rejected the need for a new road from the A38 Junction 23 of the M5 Direct to C182 the existing road to HPC. The existing road built for the ‘A’ station. EDF advised me that it was totally unnecessary. Insufficient traffic flows, too difficult to build over a floodplain and would be environmentally sensitive. The Cannington bypass and other road/junction improvements will be adequate so EDF say. I disagree. 1.3 My contention is that the proposed road improvements are not adequate. The A38 to the A39 via the Northern Distributor road will not cope with the increased traffic flow. I gather traffic surveys have been done. I contend they do not take into account the holiday traffic going to and from Minehead and the Exmoor national park. In particular Butlins which has change over days on Mondays and Fridays (only closed during January). Monday and Friday mornings (between 9am and 11.00am) up to 4,000 vehicles leave Minehead with the majority going to Bridgwater and the M5. The reverse takes place in the afternoon (between 1pm and 5pm) The proposed improvements will cause long tailbacks on those working days. Overall the holiday trade to Minehead and West Somerset is vital to its local economy. We have to compete with Devon & Cornwall who generally have better access and also with train services. 1.5 Inadequate consideration has been given to all those people who reside along the roads and who use them to access work, school, college and leisure. Modelling scenarios is never an accurate reflection of what really happens. The M25 is the best example of modelling not being what happens in reality. 1.4 EDF keep on stressing the economic benefits and I gather the cost of HPC is £500million. The life is 60 years with the distinct possibility of a D station. So let common sense prevail and ensure the majority of the road construction traffic and workers get to HPC with the minumium inconvenience to them and us. The benefit of the road after completion of HPC would last forever. 1.5 So EDF should be looking long term and not just HPC. A direct new road is the practical solution and the benefits would outweigh any environmental disturbance. A site visit together with helicopter ride should be considered by all IPC members and officials. I would urge the Infrastructure Planning Commission to reject the Application until a detailed cost benefit analysis has been undertaken on the Transport."

North Petherton Town Council
"North Petherton Town Council is concerned about the impact that the proposals with have on the transport system in the area. Junction 24 and the A38 are major routes through our communities. We are not satisfied that EDF and Somerset County Council have effectively analysed the impact of extra traffic on these routes. The council believes that the road traffic system will be gridlocked on a regular basis. We have not yet been supplied with plans for the Huntworth Roundabout or for changes to the Huntworth Park & Ride facilities and Freight Consolidation Yard. These roads currently become grid locked in the summer weekends already, EDF did a traffic survey at our request via the EDF transport forum, but it emerged that the cameras were turned off before the key lunchtime period when the service station becomes gridlocked. Evaluation of the costs and benefits of a Northern By Pass were cursory and inadequate. We are also very concerned about the impact of a major influx of workers at EDF will have on local facilities. We expect that many of the EDF workers will be housed in the new housing developments at Wilstock and Stockmoor and these areas have inadequate community facilities. Local people in North Petherton and other villages will find it more difficult to access facilities in Bridgwater and Taunton and we are concerned that local facilities will need to be upgraded as a consequence."

Ronald Allen
"EDF have failed to address the problems to the current overloaded road infrastructure at any of the consultation events. The routes from the M5 to Hinkley Point proposed by EDF are single carriage way which are often grid locked under normal traffic conditions. Accidents on these routes have caused closure for up to 6 hours. The introduction of their estimated 750 HGV's (up to 40 tonnes loading each),680 light goods vehicles, 900 workers busses and 400 private cars per day is a 64% increase in current road traffic loading. This increase will bring an estimated total of 6960 vehicles per working day through the main road of Cannington Village. This route passes College and infant school entrances, Alms Houses, the Post Office and Spar shop. Not only will this endanger residents and children of the village but also restrict emergeny vehicles attending accidents in the surrounding area, also as well as attending any emergencies at the existing power station or workers employed in the new construction. A dedicated road, from Dunball to Hinkley Point would not only provide a safety escape route, bypass Bridgwater, Cannington, other villages but would reduce fuel, transport costs and pollution to the country side. It would be less than half of the distance of the proposed routes which have many restrictions such as road junctions, pedestrian crossings and narrow rural roads"

mc2 Energizing Business
"The nuclear new build application for Hinkley Point should be judged in the context of contribution to international climate change obligations, national security of supply and local economic sustainability: National relevance: The Government aims to ensure that the UK has sufficient, affordable, accessible, low carbon energy. Nuclear provides CO2 free baseload generation, essential to balance against the intermittency of renewables. The UK has over 50 years experience with nuclear generation. It is a proven technology that we have the expertise to build now and once built will last 60 years. The new proposed EPRs produce only 10% of the waste of current stations and use uranium 60 times more efficiently. The OECD, World Nuclear Association and closer to home, the Royal Academy of Engineers all confirm that nuclear is cheaper than gas or coal. In addition fuel accounts for only 10% of operating costs as opposed to 60% for gas. Therefore nuclear contributes to security of supply, carbon targets and at a lower cost than other alternatives. However, all but one of the UK’s nuclear stations is due to close by 2023. If nuclear new build is delayed the default position is gas. Building superfluous gas plant will lock the UK into expensive, volatile gas prices with variable security of supply as by 2020 80% of our gas requirements will have to be imported, often from politically unstable regimes. Gas, although cleaner than coal, still emits 0.5kg of CO2 p/kWh which will derail any attempt to comply with carbon targets. CCS is as yet in engineering terms many years away from fruition and will in any case double the cost of generating electricity from coal. Local relevance: Hinkley Point has been providing electricity for the equivalent of 4 million homes since 1976. Hundreds of well-paid jobs support an otherwise constrained rural area of Somerset with the multiplier effect distributing wealth creation throughout the community and surrounding area. The strong skills base here is being reinforced with the opening of the Energy Centre at Bridgwater College, opening up opportunities for young people to train for the nuclear industry. The construction process will bring benefits on a wider scale through the supply chain for manufacturing, components, legal and financial services for example. International relevance: As world energy demand increases, particularly from the developing countries, access to our usual markets could be more competitive making it imperative to ensure the UK has its own sources of low carbon baseload energy. To play our role on the global stage regarding climate change, the UK needs an economically persuasive argument. Only by pursuing energy policies that lead to affordable low carbon generation that is economically viable for both industry and consumers will our global colleagues be more open to contribute to international agreements. The EU is a poor role model."

Williton Parish Council
"At a Full Council meeting of the Parish Council on 3rd January it was resolved to put the following representations to the IPC. There was some concern expressed on the impact of the increase in the volume of traffic resulting from the proposed Park and Ride at Smithyard near Washford Cross and the effect on the roundabout in Williton at Egremont Corner which is already a bottleneck. To alleviate the congestion it was proposed requesting that a cyclist/pedestrian link should be created from Williton to Washford Cross for those workers who will be living in Williton and the surrounding area and who will be commuting the short distance to the Park and Ride. The noise factors due to the additional traffic going through Williton should also be taken into account and measures puts in place to address the impact of this on residents living in Long Street. The promised roundabout at Washford Cross was welcomed but it was emphasised that this should be constructed prior to the operation of the Park and Ride. We hope you will take these comments into consideration when examining the application from EDF."

Rob Spier
"Please in the name of God do not allow this abhorrence to be built! No doubt the nuclear lobbyists will claim that nuclear power stations are cost effective and safe but the evidence proves otherwise. After Fukashima, nuclear compainies will claim that problems only arise if a natural disaster occurs - yet was the fatal explosion at EDF's Marcoule plant due to a natural disaster? NO! Furthermore, the tidal highs and lows in the Bristol Channel throughout history have been substantial, a nuclear power plant would literally be a ticking time bomb. Add to this the fact that a power plant would require anywhere from ~2 to 5 million cubic metres of water PER DAY, to act as a coolant. The water that is pumped back renenters the sea at a higher temperature, having distructive implications for the local sealife. Even looking at the local environment, a wide range of radioactive isotopes are released with varying radioactive and chemical properties – some toxic, some not, some more radioactive than others, some lasting minutes, some lasting billions of years (1). Living near a nuclear facility increases your chances of dying from breast cancer. A nationwide survey of 268 counties within 50 miles of 51 nuclear reactors, found breast cancer deaths in these "nuclear counties" to be 10 times the national rate from 1950 to 1989 (2). In the 7 years after the closure of 8 nuclear reactors, infant mortality rates (deaths to infants under 1 year of age) fell dramatically in downwind communities (3). Strontium-90, a radioactive pollutant now released only from nuclear reactors, ends up in milk and bones, contributing to bone cancer and leukemia. Studies of Sr-90 in baby teeth found levels 30-50% higher in teeth of children living near reactors (4). Background levels are rising with continued use of nuclear reactors, rising to levels comparable to when atmospheric nuclear bomb tests contaminated the nation in the 1940s and ‘50s. Levels in the teeth of babies born in the late 1990s are about 50% higher than those born in the late 1980s. Of the 7 areas examined so far in the baby tooth studies, the highest Sr-90 levels have been found in southeastern PA – around the Limerick reactor Living near reactors is also correlated with increases in leukemia and childhood cancer. http://www.energyjustice.net/nuclear 1. Routine Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Reactors. http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/routineradioactivereleases.htm The National Academy of Science reported in its Biological Effects of Radiation Report V11, 2005, that there is no threshold beneath which exposure to radiation is not dangerous 2. Jay M. Gould. The Enemy Within: The High Cost of Living Near Nuclear Reactors : Breast Cancer, AIDS, Low Birthweights, And Other Radiation-induced Immune Deficiency Effects. Four Walls Eight Windows, 1996. 346 pgs http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=82314269 Also see, Radiation and Public Health Website www.radiation.org/ 3. Environmental Radiation from Nuclear Reactors and Childhood Cancer in Southeast Florida, Radiation and Public Health Project, 9 April 2003. Summary available at http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/587/5518.html 4. Joseph Mangano. Low Level Radiation and Immune System Damage. Published by CRC, July 29th 1998.See also Radioactive Baby Teeth: The Cancer Link. Published by Society For Human Resource Management. October 2007. ISBN-13: 9781566199094 As for a boost to the local economy, I don't think so! The UK taxpayer is currently expected to pay £83 billion and rising to decommission existing nuclear sites. The cost of n-waste management from a new generation of reactors will be capped by government. Taxpayers will pay the rest."

Mrs D A Hills
"I have deep concerns about transport issues raised by this application. There will an unacceptable overload on the area and in particular on roads in Bridgwater, Cannington and villages surrounding Hinckley point. Insufficient account has been taken of the traffic congestion already present in Bridgwater; the fact that the A39 is the only major route to Minehead in this area; and the narrowness of the country roads in the vicinity of Hinckley. This will have very serious implications in the event of access being required for major emergencies as well as the impact on the lives of local residents. None of the proposals for 'improvement' to the road system will counter sufficiently the problems generated by the very major increase in traffic. The village of Cannington will become very congested from increased traffic and the effect of the proposed park and ride systems. The proposed new link road from the western roundabout on the Canninton bypass to the Rodway will have an adverse effect on properties and owners on the western side of Cannington."

Robert Munday
"I am one of a number of people who regularly cycle from Combwich/Cannington to Bridgwater using the C132 and the A39. Even at present the roads are busy and hazardous for cyclists. The increased traffic caused by this development will increase this hazard. To minimise the danger to cyclists and to promote the use of cycling to both the existing communities and the new build sites a linked series of cycle paths are essential to join Bridgwater to Hinkley Point. A well used route is through Wembdon village to Cannington and then on to Combwich. Two hazardous stretches on this route are the A132 from Cannington to Combwich and the A39 from Sandford Corner to Cannington (the portion of road known as the Cannington straight.) It is essential that safe cycle paths are created to prevent cycles from having to use these sections of busy road. This could easily be done by enlarging the existing footpaths on these stretches of road to become shared use cycle/foot paths."

Darren Walsh
"The planning should be approved along with an upgrade of the local road structure to support the extra road traffic that will be associated with the construction phase. Consideration should be given to the future construction of accomodation near the site such as hotels near the worksite to reduce the traffic levels on the current road system."

Cannington Parish Council
"Cannington Parish Council is very concerned about the transport plans indicated by EdF in their application - we ask for early completion of the proposed Western by pass BEFORE any proper works start at the site. We feel that consideration must also be given for a Northern by pass from Bridgwater to link with the Western by pass to relieve Bridgwater and Cannington of the traffic."

Maurice J Locke
"I am very concerned about the amount of traffic that this construction will bring to this area especially through the village of Cannington where I live. I think the proposed Western by pass should be a priority and be built BEFORE any full construction work at the site starts. There should also be a NORTHERN by pass built to connect with this Western one to alleviate the traffic in Bridgwater town and would in the end be a lagacy to this area for holiday traffic to the West (Minehead, North Devon and beyond)."

Michael John Short
"Transport , I have grave reservations that the EDF proposals for the mitigation of traffic increases resulting from the construction process during the next 10 to 15 years will in fact result in a satisfactory alleviation of traffic problems which are already dire at times . Accomodation . As we have a camping and caravan site adjoining the village , which at present is a seasonal site , I am concerned about the vast numbers of itinerant workers coming to the area and where they are going to find accomodation ."

Teresa Dane
"I have no objections to Hinkley C being built BUT i do have a problem with traffic. A bypass has been talked about and i back this 100%. The traffic if an accident happens is mayhem so i can imagine it will only be worse when the build starts. I think this will have an impact on tourism."

Linda Allen
"I work as a nurse three and a half miles from my home in the direction of Hinkley Point. I have spent up to 15 minutes trying to exit my road onto a hill used by traffic travelling to and from Hinkley. Due to the CURRENT volume of traffic my journey often takes a further 35 to 40 minutes. This will increase with the estimated 65% increase of EDF vehicles when construction starts. EDF have constantly refused to acknowledge the problems that their vehicles will create by insisting that their computer analysis proves that thre will be no delays along the total route from the M5 to Hinkley when construction commences. I and the residents of Cannington continually experience long hold ups and frequent gridlock when travelling to and from bridgwater on the single carriageway A39 with the current weight of traffic. This situation is worse when in the spring and summer months,when being a farming community, with many farms on the C182 Hinkley route, tractors and slow moving animal transporters take to the roads. This is further aggravated by holiday traffic using the M5, A38, & A39. EDF Consultations started approximately three years ago and were urged to complete a study for a road (or a dedicated haul road) to by-pass Bridgwater, Cannington, & Combwich. This was refused then and EDF have continued to refuse to date."

Maureen Webb
"I do not object in general to the proposed build, however I am concerned about the impact it will have on my life and the village I live in. My main concerns are increased noise, dust and traffic, in particular heavy traffic during the build and possible negative affect on property values."

Thomas James Boyd
"Aspect of disagreement with application ---------------------------------------------------- 1) Transport and infrastructure plans affecting surrounding community. 2) Lack of open honest communication with community during consultation exhibitions. Objections and concerns. --------------------------------- From very start of consultations residents, parish, district and county councils have all stated the transport proposals were most unsatisfactory. These would result in gridlock for the area creating delays for the population along with delays to transporting staff and materials to and from the Hinkley site. We requested the building of a direct link from junction 23 of the M5 to Hinkley. This was a recommendation in the Barnes report of 1989. Road traffic is now far heavier than at that period and the EDF proposals will more than double the present traffic, the bulk of which will be buses and high tonnage HGV's. The route passes along single twisty narrow carriageways through residential , countryside and villages never designed to carry this type of tonnage or vehicles. This poses a great risk to the safety of both residents and Hinkley. The route is already notorious for hold ups of up to six hours due to accidents, and roadwork repairs. This is the only useable route serving villages in the area and Hinkley. In the event of these types of holdups lives will be put at risk if access is denied to the emergency services such as ambulance fire and police. EDF claim they undertook a study of the requested direct link. Their local manager admitted it would be beneficial to them as well but was supposedly discounted on two different occasions with two differing reasons. 1) Government would not allow new build roads {now disproved along with the fact EDF always intended building a new road to bypass the centre of Cannington but would dissect Brymore College attached to Cannington}. 2) The environment agency would not permit disruption to wildlife and fauna along the suggested route. { There appears to have been no objection to rehousing all the badgers from the area pre commencement of the preparatory site works}. I find it strange no reference either for or against this study appears to have been made in the DCO submitted to yourselves. Was it ever undertaken? If not, why not? EDF commissioned a telephonic satisfaction survey of 1000 people undertaken by a research company. Two questions only were asked. Would the project be good for local businesses and help create employment. No reference to transport or infrastructure. This produced an 85% satisfaction result. EDF say 3000 local people attended the public consultations. From local knowledge the vast majority would have objected to the transport and infrastructure proposals. A survey undertaken by Cannington parish council showed over 90% of the population rejected the transport proposals saying the Direct link to Hinkley was a necessity. Quoting these two surveys, EDF have given press releases claiming 85% satisfaction towards their plans. Grossly misleading! Why? The proposed Park and Ride to the rear of my residence, along with the resultant traffic chaos will devalue my residence."

Combwich Action Group
"We as a group have no objection to Hinkley C itself. Our concern is with the development of combwich warfe. We have no objections to EDF bringing in the AILs as that was what the warfe was built for. It is the use and building of a new goods dock and the amount of road traffic that will be created in order to build the lay down area that will be needed to store goods delivered at the new dock. We have evidence that as many lorry movements will be created in order to build the facility as will be saved by using the facility. We have concerns about the effect on the village as many properties lie very close to the warfe and lay down area. Hours of operation are also major concern again due to the close proximity of property`s to the site. This is a concern at the time of construction and operation.The figures we refer to are EDFs own figures."

Dr G L Parle
"The proposed application, if approved, will over-populate the already congested roads of Cannington together with the roads leading into and out of the village. In the case of an emergency (an already frequent occurence) the traffic will be gridlocked and distress and inconvenience caused to thousands of travellers and their families. The heavy traffic passing through and around the village would cause great danger to pedestrians, particularly schoolchildren using the narrow roads in the village. A northern bypass would prevent all of the above problems."

Stephen Chinn
"I am not against Hinkley C but have many concerns about the Combwich Warfe development. I live only 200 metres from the development and I except the fact that we will have to have the AIL`s delivered at Combwich but I have concerns about the size of the Freight side of the development.I also have concerns about the amount of materials that will be moved through Cannington prior to the Cannington bypass being completed as a result of the Combwich Lay down area having to be raised by 1 metre. (Information from EDFs own documents). I would also like to take issue with the times of operation whilst in the construction stage and also when fully operational. (All facts and figures are from EDFs own consultation documents). I have tried to understand EDFs transport policy but fail to understand how in order to save lorry movements on our local roads they plan to build something at Combwich that will take many 1000s of lorry movements 45000 to build then 45000 to return to a greenfield site. (information from EDF`s own documents)."

Greg Taylor
"I support the development of Hinkley point C"

Fells Associates
"Security of Supply Nuclear power provides some 16% of UK electricity, from a high of 22% in 2001. The percentage is diminishing as ageing stations are decommissioned; only Sizewell B will be left after 2023 unless life extension for Torness is implemented. Coal stations are also being decommissioned either for not meeting new, EU emission standards, or on account of age, usually both. Gas is the default position for replacement in the short term. Renewables cannot possibly take up the slack and are intermittent and unreliable, they can make no contribution to base load supply. Between 25 and 30GW of new generating capacity must come on stream by 2020. Gas will have to plug this gap but post 2020 nuclear stations can start coming on stream; the first will be Hinkley. In terms of security and diversity of supply this is essential. Imported gas, which will make up 80% of UK demand by 2020, is subject to a number of possible disruptions: closure of the Straight of Hormuz, politically motivated disruption, terrorism (gas pipelines are vulnerable), rising demand elsewhere, and, of course, price hikes. Carbon Targets Alongside Hydro-power, Nuclear Power is the only large scale provider of CO2 free electricity. The UK target of 15% renewable energy by 2020 (32% renewable electricity) will prove impossible to reach. More gas will make matters worse. Costs Long term, fixed price contracts for nuclear power are possible because nuclear fuel costs are are lessthan 10% of operating costs whereas with ga they are 60%. Gas prices are volatile and very difficult to predict but they will go up as we pull out of recession. The case for building Hinkley C seem irrefutable."

Sheila Allen
"EDF consultations and proposals have failed to consider the impactof the large increase in vehicular traffic which will be using roads(A38 & A39) which are already overstretched with local and holiday traffic. Some parts of the route to Hinkley Point are unfit for the estimated 750 HGV'S (of up to 40 tonnes loading) per day. EDF have ignored the fact that all routes to Hinkley are single carriageway and that accidents have in the past caused gridlock which prevented emergency vehicles fron reaching the incident. (helicopters were needed). EDF's estimated 2700 PLUS ADDITIONAL vehicles per day will increase the risk of total gridlock and subsequently affect the safety of residents along the route, construction workers and current workers. EDF's proposals for a Western by-pass and a Park & Ride facility will bring fuel and noise pollution to the entire village. Both proposed sites being at a higher level than the village will increase the already serious problem of some residents being unable to obtain flood protection insurance or being loaded with heavy premiums EDF Vehicles will pass through the narrow main street of the village where there are residential homes (some grade II listed structures) Post Office, Alms Houses, Provisions Shop, three Public Houses/Restaurants, Entraces to two Colleges and an Infants School. EDF have, from the start of consultations, stated that they have no intention of carrying out a study for a by-pass or a dedicated haul road avoiding Bridgwater, Cannington, and Combwich which would in the interests of safety be the best solution."

Dr Rachel Western BA (Oxon) PhD MRSC
"It is instrinsic to nuclear power that radionuclides are produced. These are radioactive and therefore dangerous."

Margaret Boyd
"EDF's transport proposals through Bridgwater, the A39, Cannington and the C182 are totally unacceptable. Having lived in Cannington for the past 11 years I believe I have sufficient knowledge of the roads referred to. At present, traffic jams through Bridgwater are a regular event. The A39 from Penel Orlieu to Cannington passes through a residential area then a country road to Cannington. It is a narrow single carriageway notorious for accidents and road repairs. These incidents have caused Cannington and the A39 westwards, to be isolated for periods in excess of six hours. This is also the only route to Hinkley Point. This isolation bars access or egress by the emergency services, ambulance, fire and police to both our community as well as Hinkley. God forbid a nuclear disaster at either Hinkley B or the new proposed Hinkley C as such an event would result in the deaths of thousands of people unable to escape. It is imperative from a safety point of view, as well as not destroying local communities, that a second route be built. The Bridgwater bypass from Junction 23 of the M5 direct to Hinkley would solve both these problems. It could also possibly be incorporated in Government's recently announced plans to invest heavily in the roads infrastructure. At present, the traffic in the area is practically at capacity. EDF's current proposed volumes will more than double this with the bulk of their traffic being of a heavy tonnage that our road system was never designed to carry. It is also worth mentioning that every time EDF release traffic volumes, the figures appear to grow.The proposals are a recipe for disaster and would be the ruination of our local communities."

Peg Beecher
"Nuclear power is dangerous and costly, relying heavily on Government subsidies for completion. The planned site is in an estury prone to errosion. Bridgewater has recently suffered flood related infrastructure collapse. Duneray Power station continued to leak years after decommissioning began. Siemans, the experienced contractor, has stopped building nuclear power stations because of the dangers. Germany has stopped it's nuclear expansion. Proposed 'fracking' for gas on the Mendips could pose unknown seismic threat to the plant."

Graham Webster
"The road infrastructure is simply inadequate for a project of this size. Somerset County Council predicts that Bridgwater will be gridlocked by 2015 without any additional traffic for Hinkley Point. Based on S.C.C base figures and EDF's own projected traffic figures, there will be an increase of over 50% in traffic levels from 2013. I can supply figures and sources. The economy of West Somerset relies to a significant degree on tourism . Holiday makers will not come to the area when they hear of the traffic chaos. People will have difficulty travelling to work, to the M5 to go anywhere outside Somerset, taking children to school etc. The roads are already overloaded during the summer period. The proposed western bypass of Cannington will not alleviate the heavy traffic through Bridgwater, on the Northern distributor road and along the A39. The projected period of build is 8 years, but no EDF build of similar power stations has run to time. For 10 years at least the economy of West Somerset will be seriously damaged and will take years to recover. This is only one of many arguments for asking the IPC to recommend rejection of the application and to invite EDF to resubmit with the addition of a proposed northern direct route, whether a northern bypass of Cannington starting near Junction 23 of the M5 or simply a dedicated road from near Junction 23 to Hinkley Point. At a public meeting on 10 August 2011, and in response to petitions signed by thousands of residents, Sedgemoor District Council’s Scrutiny Committee agreed a Resolution which included the following request: “The Scrutiny committee urges EDF not to submit a Development Consent Application to the IPC until such time as EDF have robustly and comprehensively assessed traffic impact and means to mitigate it, including a truly comparative assessment of a Northern By-pass and online improvements, to the satisfaction of the Local Authorities.” This was unanimously endorsed by the full SDC Executive on 24 August 2011. I am particularly incensed that this seems to have been totally ignored by EDF. No work should be allowed until an alternative route is constructed."

Patricia Anne Webster
"I am very concerned about the road systems in the area which are totally inadequate to carry the number and size of vehicles which EDF predicts. The village of Cannington will have one HGV driving through it every minute at least during daytime hours from 2013- 750 per day. This tiny village cannot cope with this volume. The pavements, even after the proposed changes, will be much too narrow for the safety of people and especially children and the elderly. Even after a Cannington western bypass is built, in 2 years, all this traffic will still come along the A39. How will emergency vehicles access Cannington and surrounds in a reasonable response time when this road is choked with traffic and there are very limited alternative routes? These alternative routes will themselves be choked with drivers seeking rat runs to avoid the extensive delays on the A39 which are inevitable. On EDF's own figures added to the current traffic figures, there will be 6,300 vehicles a day travelling on the A39 in winter. In summer, there will be more. Assuming exactly even spacing of traffic over 24 hours, a 2 hour delay due to an accident will give rise to a traffic jam of 526 vehicles. The A39 has been closed for far longer. It is easy to envisage a jam of several thousand vehicles right back and through Bridgwater. My husband has heart disease. How can an adequate ambulance service be provided? What if there is a safety issue at Hinkley B, which is still operating? Or a fire there or at any commercial or residential building in Bridgwater or west of Bridgwater? However, if EDF had included in its application a dedicated road from Junction 23 of the M5, or a bypass from there to west of Cannington, this key safety issue would be would solved. I attended many 'consultation ' meetings. At every one, local people were adamant and unanimous in demanding such a northern route. This was usually the sole topic raised by the public. At every one , the EDF representatives refused to contemplate such a route. They gave reasons such as environment and time it would take, the latter with exagerated projections contradicted by Arup, the consultant engineers to Sedgmore D.C. The real reason was cost, of course. EDF was requested to do such a study by Somerset County Council and Sedgmore District Council. Thousands signed petitions demanding such a study. No thorough study has been undertaken, I am assured by my councillors. Our MP demands such a study as do all interested non governmental bodies. I ask that you reject the application on the grounds of inadequate road infrastructure. I am sure that EDF will then reapply and include a northern route as they should have in the first place."

Burnham Water Users Forum
"This concerns the jetty application. Vol 2 Chapter 17, 17.4.13 to 17.4.17 states that no recreational activity takes place of the coast of Hinkley. We as water users dispute this alligation. We can provide evidence that a local boat fishing club, uses the coast from Steart to Lilstock when weather conditions are ok, mainly at weekends. The jetty itself will take out a large area that boats travel through and stop to fish at. The exclusion zone will add additional cost to boats navigating around it. We also have concerns about the water intake and discharge pipes. Their proposed location is an area fished by local private boats. We understand there will be a rise in sea water temperatures in this location. We have seen in the past few years an increase in species caught in our area. Bullhuss, Smalleyed Ray and Brill all uncommon so far west, have been caught."

Mrs Kerry Trout
"I live locally and am broadly in favour of the application. I will write in more detail at later stage."

Mrs Freda Draper
"I like many other people who live in Cannington are against the Hinkley Point Traffic coming from Junction 24 and Junction 23 of the M5 through the A39 to Hinkley Point in Cannington. We want EDF to build a by pass from Junction 23 direct to Hinkley Point point from Dunball. The A39 is always closing due to tagic accidents and this would be disastorus with all the extra traffic expected to come through our village. WE DON'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN. Please stop this madness before it is to late."

John Cullum
"Just wish to say that I have a major interest as High Sheriff of Somerset in the well being of communities and I believe this project will create much needed employment opportunities to boost the local economy as well as much needed infrastructure improvements."

Mr Geoffrey Maurice Draper
"EDF have seriously underestimated the transport infrastructure for the A39. Comment from a letter from Cllrdavid Hall 26-07-11 EDF current transport proposals were not adequate,What criteria you use in selecting the access route to HP for the construction period, hundreds of HGV's a day on roads that were designed for traffic of the 50;s and 60;s I spoke twice to Mr david Eccles once in Cannington and once in Stogursey about traffic conditions accidents closing the roads, he said to me both times that they dont happen very often ,Well the A39 has been closed twice in the last 12 months for a number hours each time and the M5 was closed for 48 hours what happens if the roads are closed with all your HGV's on them ?"

Zoe Smith
"I believe that the IPC is being asked to make this judgement with incomplete information. The reactor design has not yet been approved, the funding to build it has not been secured. And even the planning policy guidelines are currently under a legal challenge. I disagree that nuclear power stations are a clean source of energy, and I don't believe they should be built at all. The justification in the planning policy is that they will reduce the effects of climate change and therefore be in the interest of public health is laughable. Construction and operation of nuclear reactors, and the extraction and processing of fuel is energy intensive and therefore not low carbon as claimed. Added to which the long term management of radioactive waste, a legacy that will be passed down many generations, is also energy intensive, and high risk, considering that we don't live in a stable world. The policy guidelines make a mockery of local democracy, constraining the input local people can have on planning process to the level of 'consultation' on what the infrastructure they WILL be having looks like. This power station will have a very real impact on the lives of local people. They will live under threat of contamination form stored high level radioactive waste for over one hundred years. The power station and waste storage will sit on the banks of an estuary with the highest tidal range in Europe, as we enter an age of rising sea levels and extreme weather events caused by global warming. Even without accidents, controlled and unintentional venting from the plant will increase risks of cancers in the local population, as shown in the German KIKK report. All for the limited amount of specialist jobs that could be open to local people. And before it even goes into operation local residents will be subjected to heavy traffic and construction workers in their villages seven days a week for at least ten years. So why don't local people get a say in whether this happens?"

Sue Baxter
"I live in an area which is and has been for many years crying out for jobs and expansion within its infrastructure, its businesses and, most importantly, its community. Bearing in mind there has been a nuclear interest in this area for decades and a new/replacement facility will have little or no impact on the existing environment then the benefits to our community and local economy resulting from the implementation of Hinkley 'C' are without parrellel; giving a positive sense of hope and optimism to those people seeking work, a better quality of life and sustainability for themselves and future generations."

The Langdon Partnership
"I fully support the application to construct the new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C on the basis that all the design and safety requirements are considered satisfactorily by the various regulatory authorities and that the best solutions to minimise the negative aspects of the construction process within the local commuinity are delivered. The investment made will contribute to ensuring energy security for the UK, the suppliers engaged in both the construction and operation of the power station will help provide high skilled jobs, provide opporunity for valuable contracts for UK and local businesses and will lift the capability and capacity of the engineering and construction sectors at a critical time for the economy. Every effort should be made to ensure UK and local businesses are effectively engaged in the supply chain."

Mrs Alison Graham
"I have lived in Cannington for almost 40 years so have good knowledge on the local community, roads and infrastructure. I am not against the application for Hinkley Point C, however, I disagree with the plans to support the construction which I believe are wholly inadequate. 1. I believe a new road from the M5 is the best solution – it removes the high volume of traffic initially, and ongoing, from the local roads which are not suited to them. A new road from the motorway would also provide resilience and a second access route for emergencies 2. Having a new road also removes the need for a park and ride and bypass in Cannington. A park and ride/bypass in Cannington would destroy the natural environment and character of the village. The park and ride and bypass would also make it difficult for Cannington residents to join the A39 from the village and impact on ability to go about normal daily life. 3. Further, the A39 itself would not support the volume of traffic. It has several accident blackspots, and if the road is closed the diversions are around very small country lanes and villages which would not be appropriate for any construction traffic caught up in the tail back of an accident An application which has not properly considered an access road from the Motorway is therefore flawed as this provides benefits for both the local area, and EDF Energy itself. If the application is granted without the requirement of a new road from the Motorway, I believe at the very least there should be a precondition that the bypass of Cannington is built before the construction/preparation work begins. The road through Cannington is not suitable for volumes of traffic/large vehicles and would lead to potential safety hazards and result in noise, disturbance and nuisance to the detriment of those living and visiting Cannington. It would also be inappropriate and unsympathetic to the appearance and character of the local environment leading to an adverse impact on amenities and an increase in danger for the Villagers. Despite the application saying there are proposed traffic calming measures, the reality is there are none – other than additional parking restrictions which could result in faster traffic, not slower; and the reduction of legitimate parking spaces could also adversely impact local businesses. I am also concerned about any potential damage to the War Memorial which stands at what would be a key road junction – this is a tribute to those who gave their lives for us – and any damage would be an insult to their memory, especially as it can be avoided."

John Vieth
"As a member of the public I believe that the building of a new power station is essential in providing electricity of our consumption. Nuclear power is the best way of generating bulk electricity requirements, as a balance with other power forms. As President of the Bridgwater Industrialists this will mean significant growth and employment for the surrounding area. Local infrastructure constraints are the biggest issue. EDF must do all they can to mitigate the congestion in Bridgwater caused by construction traffic. I believe this is being played down and must be seriously addressed."

Nuclear Free Local Authorities
"The NFLA response will consider a number of issues of concern with this planning application: 1. Local siting issues of new reactors at Hinkley point and the size of the footprint of this application. 2. Concerns over flooding and other nuclear emergency planning issues 3. Concerns over gaseous and marine discharges from a new reactor 4. Concerns over new build waste and high burn-up fuel from the planning application 5. Concerns over the financing of new nuclear reactors in the current economic climate 6. Concerns over the EPR design 7. Concerns over low level radiation and health 7. Additional issues that arise from the Fukushima disaster For these issues we oppose the planning application and look forward to going into more detail into them during the IPC policy process. All issues have been considered by the NFLA and the arguments we have made can be found in the 'Responses to the Nuclear New Build Consultations on the NFLA website - http://www.nuclearpolicy.info (500 words is simply not enough space to make more detailed comments, which is why our website is referred to)."

Rosemary Woods
"I am a resident of West Somerset, and a Parish Councillor for Williton Parish - These are my views having lived in the area most of my life, (seven years in the Puriton Parish, 20 years in Minehead Parish, 12 years in the Watchet Parish). Bridgwater is already a pinch point in the road network which brings both residents and visitors to West Somerset therefore: I have concern on the road access for transporting goods connected with the building of Hickley C Power Station through Bridgwater. At present the plan is to send part of the transport from Junction 24 (North Petherton) of the M5 towards Bridgwater to a holding area, then on to the A38 (Taunton Road) through the junction of the A38/A39 in Bridgwater, then down the A39 towards Cannington. This would create considerable conjestion in Bridgwater. I would suggest that even if the holding area on the A38 (Near North Petherton) is used, then the transport should go back onto the M5 and North to Junction 23 (Puriton) and come off the motorway heading towards the A38 Bristol Road to join a newly constructed By-Pass which could bridge the River Parrot in the vicinity of Dunball and on towards the C182."

A D Taylor
"I believe that the proposed plan for Hinkley Point has disregarded the need to provide adequate access during and after commission for emergency services in the event of an incident by relying, primarily, on existing roads to and through Cannington. These roads barely cope with existing traffic and are frequently blocked by accidents. The main road carries a high proportion of holliday traffic and heavy farm traffic in season."

Danny Watkins
"I frequently visit my relatives in Cannington and am shocked at the proposal to have large construction traffic running through Cannington, Bridgewater and the surrounding villages. The village roads are single track with houses close to the road. Construction traffic would destroy the calm of the villages and surrounding countryside, and such a solution is entirely inappopriate. My understanding is that EDF has not properly considered a Northern bypass or route from the motorway. A full appraisal of the implications for local residents should be undertaken and weighed against the relatively modest costs (by the scale of the construction) of the alternative dedicated route proposals. The costs suggested by EDF have not been properly examined to take into account the reduction in transport costs and long term damage to the local environment. I hope you will register my feelings that allowing this construction project to destroy local communities and environment should not be permitted."

Somerset Chamber of Commerce & Industry Ltd
"The Somerset Chamber fully supports the application on basis that all safety requirements are assessed as acceptable by regulatory authorities and that the negative impact on residential communities during construction are minimised. We support the application because it will bring a massive stimulus to the local economy with higher skills, better paid jobs, more specialist business capabilities and valuable contracts. Skills and careers The proposed new build and operation at Hinkley C represents a great opportunity for young people looking for skilled careers in Somerset. There is an urgent need to enthuse them with the potential of skilled jobs in high level civil construction and engineering as well as the 60 year legacy of up to 900 highly skilled nuclear power careers. An approved application and the construction, engineering and allied works that follow will provide a major 10-year economic stimulus with Somerset not seeing this level of investment for several generations. Local business contract value and improved capability The individual business that would have the opportunity to work at the Hinkley Point C site will come in many shapes and sizes. Small contracts to smaller local businesses will give a massive boost to cash-flow at a time when there is a real struggle for survival in some sectors. For larger business winning contracts for an element of the project will mean they can keep and expand their workforce and importantly increase the skill levels of workers and management placing the business in a strong position to tender for more skilled work on projects in the future either within or outside of the nuclear industry. Inward Investment Building a new nuclear power station requires many skills not represented in Somerset. There are already a number of highly skilled companies who are making strategic decisions to base themselves in Somerset in order to be closer to the project. These highly skilled companies attracted to Somerset not only bring more employment and higher paid jobs to the area but also strengthen the mix of capabilities and markets serviced from Somerset. Boost to local economy We agree with the estimates that Hinkley Point C construction will bring £100 million per year to the local economy during peak construction, and £40 million per year during 60 years of operation. As important though these big numbers are it is crucial that the project finds ways to award small contracts to our smaller businesses that make up 80% of the business community. Continuing effort and focus will be required by EDF Energy and its contractors to ensure that valuable local engagement with business becomes one of the beacons for future major civil engineering projects to benchmark against. The Somerset Chamber of Commerce is keen to continue working with EDF Energy to make this a reality. Energy Security for business There is a global issue for business whereby it is critical that a consistent sustainable energy supply and price are achieved. Any delay that jeopardises this supply of low carbon energy will be very costly to business and will have significant negative impact on the vibrancy of the economy. Successive UK Governments have committed to supporting the increased supply of nuclear power with Hinkley Point C being at the forefront of investment by the private sector in the nuclear power industry in this country. This investment should not be unduly delayed Managing the negative impact on business We recognise that the project will bring its own challenges for businesses as there will be competition for valuable resources (particularly staffing) and an impact on traffic management. More transparent work needs to be done to build confidence on how the impact will be minimised. Business will still be challenged, but we believe that Somerset will be massively better off with the investment and the improved skills that will be developed. Overall there will be a massive boost to the economy; However the business community accepts they will need to work through the challenges and look forward to a continued relationship with EDF Energy where mitigation will be constructive and positive."

Chris Squires
"I believe the proposed development of Hinkley Point C is essential in order to provide a reliable source of baseload capacity for our energy future. Reliance upon high-carbon fossil fuel alternatives and renewables will not guarantee low-risk, stable cost electricity. The proposals for the new station appear to have been well thought through and will provide a tremendous socio-economic benefit to the area and to the UK as a whole. I applaud the development of the new nuclear build programme and fully support this proposal."

Mick Franks
"I strongly disagree with application, due to the road planed infrastructure is inadiquate. All transport for the project will have to use the A39 ,which has several natoriose accident black spots. If the road is block there is no alterative route for HGV's and it will be grid locked for hours. Also the emergencey services will not be able to respond. A dedicated road from juntion 23 M5 to the proposed site is the only option. The pay back would be enormous, not only would the new build have easy acces so would the decomissioning of A and B stations. I there was ever an emergency the responce would be alot quicker. If a D station needs to be built the infrastructure would already be in place for the new build, and the local population would be on side."

Reverend Geraldine Kirk
"I speak in support of the Nuclear option primarily for theological reasons. These being a) God created the world and everything in it, and God created it good b) He desires us to use the resources He gives us for the good of others c) Risk has always been part of the package of humanity, also part of the package of human exploration, allowing us to grow. d) We cannot uninvent nuclear energy. It has to be managed according to the democratic process. It is ultimately a gift from God."

Elliott Webster
"It is thoroughly inappropriate to send a large number of HGV vehicles through Cannington Village. Traffic through Cannington is expected to increase by over 50%, much of this being HGV's and buses. By mid-summer 2013 there could be one large vehicle passing through Cannington every 40 seconds, just to service Hinkley Point C build requirements. No work should be allowed until a northern dedicated route or Bridgwater and Cannington bypass is constructed."

Parish Councillor Valerie Bannister
"I call on the IPC to rigorously examine EDF's traffic and access proposals. Unrealistic and potentially dangerous in their entirety, as a Parish Councillor I am here concentrating on the impact on Cannington village only. Two schools in the village, bussing of senior students to out-of-village schools, and a major outlier of Bridgwater College (this latter serving not only hundreds of typical students but part-time attendees with physical and mental handicap); a higher than average elderly (over 80s) population. Shops, pubs, post office. Fairly heavy tractor and other farm vehicle usage. A "single through road" village, with a number of houses - old, and listed - almost on the roadway; unavoidable sharp-angle turn into Rodway and restricted vision exit - no alternative - just where students cross the road from one part of college to another (not where the Pelican crossing proposed), and elderly people cross from village centre to bus stop. (Not that outside the Alms Houses, that on Rodway by the War Memorial). The volume of HGVs will - as soon as Section 106 signed off, any day now - rise so that the next will be in sight before the first passed by. There will be a number of other vehicles - cars, buses - as well. This envisaged for at least 18 months prior to commencement of work on even the short and inadequate "western bypass" originally presented by EDF as keeping most traffic out of the village. The village is quite unsuitable for the volume of through traffic planned by EDF (as are the approach roads - both during construction and for safety reasons/A39 accidents have closed this only access completely for 5 to 6 hours four times in the last four years). The answer is a northern bypass (from J23 M5 direct to Hinkley). Or the small, promised, western bypass should be built before the large numbers of HGVs start to roll."

Hadee Engineering Co. Ltd.
"The sanction to build a nuclear power station at Hinckley, will benefit the local businesses, help create jobs for the longer term, training for better skills, individual confidence, happier local people with jobs who can take care of their families even support the older generation with improved facilities, a big benefit all round. The county will benefit from revenue from the station, allowing more money to be spent on education, schools, shops, improved community feelings. These power stations are much much safer, I have personnelly worked on Nuclear stations over 20 years without any problems, it is our childrens future, they have an oportunity to learn and understand this power, in years to come their education of this will improve the stations even more with unrivald knowledge of Nuclear. Where did we START."

Alan Ladd
"I WISH TO SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ECONOMIC SUPPORT TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, NEW JOBS AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MANY AND TO DELIVER MUCH NEEDED "GREEN ENERGY" TO OUR COUNTRY."

Bay Systems Ltd.
"The biggest danger, for employment and long term economic benefit, is that the jobs created will be 5 year transient burger flipping, floor mopping and basic construction. These jobs have low cost of entry and will not create added value after the project is complete. The jobs that are needed are those that stimulate and support Hi-Tec technologies which will be longer lived than the project. These jobs at the site are guarded by high cost to enter conditions with no guarantee that work will be winnable. The cost of entry is typically £20,000.00 for the certifications needed to open the PQQs. Getting past the PQQ is not any sort of guarantee that work of value >>£20k can be won. Many of the higher technology projects will be subject to settled partnerships; well established at the prime contractor and tier two levels. "Opportunities" such as the 2012 Olympics had contracts that were cleverly bundled to make it next to impossible for an SME to win work, should this common technique be repeated then no high tech company building will go on in Somerset and the SW. It is already the case that most if not all of the "real" engineering will be imported from France with nothing for engineers in the SW to do but queue on the M5 as they commute home. As an indication of the degree of incompetance that these forms project to the user is the fact that the "If you cannot read the two words shown, click the "get a new challenge" button on the captcha without telling the reader what the button looks like." Tthe captcha help screen do not mention the GET A NEW CHALLENGE. The help just asks that you do your best! Finally by hitting a each button a new chal;lenge appeared. Who was responsible for testing this forms layout and instruction and why are they still employed?"

Miss Jane Somerset
"I have lived happily in Cannington for 11 years. It is a wonderful and happy community. I do not object to another Nuclear Power Station. I most strongly object to the fact that NO ALTERNATIVE NORTHERN BYPASS is being considered by EDF, not only for the heavy plant and lorries to avoid an already clogged up Bridgwater, but the damage already inflicted on our precious village by the numerous heavy lorries thundering around, and threatening our beloved War Memorial. If there were to be such an accident as have been in two other Nuclear Power Plants abroad, IF THERE IS NO NORTHERN BY PASS, THAT IS A BRIDGE FROM HINKLEY TO DUNBALL, how are the emergency vehicles going to access, the staff if any left, escape, and what about US? Our already clogged roads will be gridlocked as villagers here and from other villages try to escape with their families. This is a situation which cannot be allowed to happen, the lives of the people in this region, and our welfare, is more important than the greed of EDF who refuse to BUILD A NORTHERN BY PASS. Thank you."

Eleanor Lakew
"I am concerned that the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and the Environment Agency (EA) has an issued interim approval for Areva's EPR reactor design and Westinghouse's AP1000 design on 14 December 2011. The two agencies claim that "they are satisfied with how the designers of both EDF and Areva’s UK EPRTM and Westinghouse's AP1000 reactors plan to resolve a number of remaining issues". . Although this is only a positive reponse to what is essentially a pre-application consultation process, it rather boosts both companies and has to be seen as a setback for anti-nuclear campaigners as well as being a pre-emptive statement intended perhaps to let opponents of nuclear know that there is a robust case for the nuclear . Basically, the ONR and the EA are satisfied that these reactor designs are safe and have no negative environmental impact. The announcement is highly relevant, as design approval means that the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) will not consider reactor safety when considering an application (partly quoted from Stop new Nuclear campaign). I have also read the information report by the NFLA Steering Committe dated 14th December which lists all the hazards and risks of nuclear reactors and it makes alarming reading indeed. I therefore would ask that the planning process is conducted in the normal way -without this preliminary pre-approval- so that the application can be assessed by all proper and interested parties and determined under democratic and proper procedures."

Mr Andy Riggs
"Major concerns on the volume of traffic to and from site, already it is difficult to access the main road at times due to vehicle movements to and from Hinkley site (at shift change times) even with buses to reduce this, how many buses will it need to take the number of workers to & from work, plus the number of vehicles transporting the materials for construction, this going to be a major problem in the local area of Cannington, causing massive problems around the FE College and Brymore school (which uses part of this route for cross country running). The traffic through Bridgwater currently bad at peak time will become dangerous and gridlocked at times with the extra traffic movements to and from Hinkley, this is obvious to anyone who lives in these areas, we don't need traffic experts or more studies. Just try to get on to the Hinkley Point road at peak times now! (so let’s use some common sense). As we need Energy, there is a need for sustainable generation, we need to ensure we don’t damage the local area to get this, NNB Genco will make large profits in the years to come, we must ensure they have considered the local areas, and compensate their neighbours for the inevitable disruption the building and running of this site will cause. Many Thanks Mr A Riggs"

Charles Gee Bridgwater Ltd
"Charles Gee Bridgwater Ltd support the IPC application made by EDF as it will bring additional business to the area which we are able to support. Our business model is to employ local people and upskill our work force if required, so additional business will mean an increase in employment and wealth creation for the local area. The benefits and legacy that can be left following the construction of Hinkley C will further increase local employment for many years and provide a sustainable regeneration of the local rural area"

Richard Curtis
"I have no objections to the build of Hinkley POint C, the issues i do have are with the traffic and congestion it will be. I have lived around here for many years and traffic has always been a problem, especially if there is an accident. The new build and the traffic it will bring will have a major impact on the roads. This needs to be sorted before the build id started as once you have realised afterwards this is to late. The Northern Bypass is the answer."

Over Stowey Parish Council
"As a Parish Council we do not object to the build of Hinkley Point C but we do have major issues about the traffic and congestion it will make. We have spoken and had comments from a lot of our locals and they all come back with the same answer and that is to build a northern bypass now before the build is started. I think unless you live in this area you cannot appreciate how bad the traffic can be when there is an accident and that is before all the additional traffic that Hinkley C build will bring. EDF's traffic/junctions improvements will not make any difference."

Martin Barnes
"I support the IPC application because it will bring a demand for a highly skilled work force during the construction and maintenance phases of the project. This will bring much needed demand for a skilled work force to this region of Somerset and increase job prospects for our young and older persons of working age. The devlopment of Hinkley C will be an overall benefit ti the region and set the stnadards for others to follow"

Impact Design & Advertising Ltd T/A Impact Design & Marketing
"I believe developing world-leading Nuclear Power supply is extremely important to the future of the UK in general, due to the increasing environmental and political pressures on other forms of energy. The Hinkley Point C Development gives Somerset business and future generations a gilt-edged opportunity to be at the forefront of the industry."

Andrew Farkas
"My main issue is the development/demolishment and subsequent [inadequate] replacement of the facilities at the Bridgwater Sports & Social Club, on Bath Road and most importantly the THREE full sized football pitches, which our club have used since 1936. As a football club we have ~75 members and field 3 teams each week, which requires at least two adjacent pitches, with changing facilities. The application quotes to replace our current facilities with just one sports pitch, which is inadequate not just for our club but also for the several other clubs which also benefit from these current facilities and are likely to miss out under the proposals. In addition, as a club we are generally concerned about, 1) the inadequate transport infrastructure that already exists in and around Bridgwater and will surely get worse before, during and after the proposed building of Hinkley Point C, and 2) the lack of leisure facilities that can keep the huge influx of workers entertained (and out of trouble) should this application be accepted."

Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG)
"My representation on behalf of BANNG will focus on three aspects. These cover issues that relate to most or all of the eight sites identified as potentially suitable for the development of new nuclear power stations. The first is the issue of flooding and coastal processes. The concern here is that changes to coasts and the possibility of flooding beyond the next hundred years are unknown, indeed unknowable. Nuclear facilities are likely to remain on site well into the next century and far beyond the period for which forecasts of climatic and coastal conditions can be made. Far greater clarity of future conditions is required before the application should proceed. A second, related, issue is the disposition of spent fuel and other highly active radioactive wastes in potentially deteriorating conditions. The policy for managing these wastes on is is unclear. Institutional continuity and social stability cannot be guaranteed into the far future. The burden of cost, effort and risk placed on future generations is unknowable and far greater clarity about how wastes will be managed is required. The third issue, concerns emergency planning processes and procedures. Detailed emergency planning zones (DEPZs.) are very tightly drawn. Beyond, this the extendability zones cover areas that, in the event of a major accident, might require evacuation and other long-term emergency planning measures. Plans appear to be vague, largely inscrutable and the vulnerable public requires information about risks, and what might occur in an emergency. Present planning procedures are inadequate and do not provide a satisfactory basis on which consent for a new large scale power plant can proceed."

Alan Davey
"I feel that the road infrastructure around both Bridgwater and Cannington will not realistically allow efficient vehicle movements once the new build begins. We have asked EDF for Vehicle movement data. Accurate data has been very difficult to aquire. The last data indicated that the LGVs that were accounted for had three or more axles. Many LGVs have only two axles and weigh in excess of 3.5 tonnes. this therefore skews the data recieved. The initial site development work is soon to commence and all the trafic has to pass through Cannington. All goods will pass down a narrow High Street, past several educational establishments as well as the village shop and Post Office. It seems that the agreed By-pass should be commissisoned prior to, not after, the initial site development."

WYG Engineering
"We support the application for a new Nuclear Plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset"

Mr R Hancock
"Whilst I am against such an extensive development in a broadly rural and picturesque area I realise that this is a national infrastructure project and it is highly likely to go ahead. However the impact of traffic in the area I feel has been grossly underestimated and not taken very seriously. Bridgwater is a pinch point for traffic and already has considerable traffic issues at certain times of the day/year. Any more traffic will have a significant impact on all communities west of Bridgwater. It is imperative that the project is not allowed to go ahead without the northern haul road from Dunball. Whilst this will have an impact in this area the road can be dedicated to the construction giving storage and unfettered access to equipment and personnel without the adverse effect on Bridgwater and traffic passing through to the west. In addition to even consider the use of Storgursey Lane as emergency access shows a deep lack of knowledge of the local roads. Even though assurances have and will be given on traffic and its management I fear that it will not be policed/enforced by anyone and once construction is started it will become a fait accompli with residents left to live with it. There is no incentive for EDF to do anything and they will of course seek to keep costs down no matter what the effect on local communities. It is essential that EDF and all relevant authorities are made to understand the deep feeling of unease about the impact of such a huge development. The documents posted to residents from EDF Energy are nothing more than propaganda and their efforts to appear involved in the local community poorly judged. Perhaps they should consider heavily subsidised electricity in the area for say a minimum of twenty years so everyone can benefit from the massive intrusion and affect on quality of life."

KGA Project Managment Ltd
"I agree entirely with the application and think that the development is a fantastic opportunity for the South West in that it will provide a mass of local employment and low carbon electricity for half a century. Let's hope Hinkley D is not too far behind."

Jay Tayler-Webb
"Combwich is a small village "in the middle of nowhere". It has few streetlights. It is served by one post office, one pub one church and one small school. You cannot drive through Combwich, only in and then out again on the same road. The villagers recognise that they must play a part in the development of Hinckley C, and take their share of the burden. This includes the use of Combwich wharf for deliveries that cannot be easily made by other means. However, "share" is the key word. The proposed development of Combwich is excessive. A tiny village - so quiet at night that you can hear the leaves falling from the trees - will, in just a few months, become industrialised. A glance at the map is sufficient to see that the scale of the proposed works and operations is disproportionate. They are also unnecessary, since there are plenty of existing suitable commercial properties and brownfield sites within 3 or 4 miles of Combwich. Specifically, life for villagers will be made unbearable by: + Noise + Vibration + Traffic, particularly large goods vehicles + Environmental effects + Light pollution + Long working hours, both during the construction and the operational phase + Spoiling of a beautiful area and lack of mitigating landscaping"

Lucy Lant
"I want to object to the building of the HinkleyC nuclear power station on several very important grounds that I will outline below: 1. The predicted construction traffic that could be as high as a vehicle every 40 seconds through the local village of Cannington will destroy the quality of life and the value of property of the villagers for at least the next 10 years. 2. Green Audit has independently examined samples from the land on the proposed site for the power station and has found evidence that it is contaminated with enriched uranium. http://www.stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf 3. The site proposed for development is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA), a Site of Community Importance (SCI), a site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) as well as a wetland area of international importance with irreplaceable woodlands and hedges. Such an important natural area should not be trashed by huge industrial development, especially a nuclear power station that requires highly contaminated wastes to be stored at the site for at least 160 years. 4. Low level radiation is emitted by nuclear power stations and this is particularly dangerous to young children in the locality. The KIKK study carried out in Germany in 2008 showed a 1.6 increase in cancers and 2.2 fold increase in leukaemia in children living within a 5 mile radius of nuclear power stations. http://www.IIrc.org/health/subtopic/pearson.htm http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLAPR COMARE14critique.pdf 5. Democracy is being undermined .Hardly any body ( local or national) knows about the proposed development of HinkleyC and those that do think it’s a “done deal” ( mostly due to the local signage pointing to HinkleyC) This stifling public debate about an issue of local, national and international importance.. EDF’s activities have not been widely publicised and there needs to be a frank local and national debate about nuclear power before any permission is given. In the post -Fukushima world, many members of the public are extremely anxious and sceptical about this extremely dangerous technology. I therefore respectfully ask the IPC to suspend its decision making process about this very controversial project until a proper public debate or even referendum has taken place"

Peter Hull
"1. Construction Traffic (important as effecting locals) - Traffic Vehicle movement in Cannington every 40 seconds during an 11 hour working day, purely for Hinkley Point C construction, in addition to normal Hinkley, and other, local traffic. - Villagers saying consultation on traffic was not done properly by EDF. - Damage to Houses by vibration of traffic not taken into consideration by EDF. - 93% of Cannington villagers do not want the EDF traffic through their village. - These are unbearable living conditions for villagers as Hinkley C is scheduled for a minimum of ten years construction. Plus overwhelming traffic pollution - Villagers are against compulsory purchase of their homes and worry about the devaluation of their property.. -should there be a nuclear accident at Hinkley Point traffic congestion would hamper evacuation process. 2.Contamination of land -EDF's commissioned AMEC to take samples and make measurements of radioactivity at various locations on the proposed site for HinkleyC. Green Audit independently examined the data to see if there were any radiological safety issues. There is evidence of enriched Uranium pollution on the land. (!) http://www.stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf 3. Land Status - designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) - a Site of Community Importance (SCI) - the estuary is also designated as a wetland of international importance - a Site of Special Scientific Interest.SSSIs (e.g. the Gwent Levels SSSI complex) - Irreplaceable ancient woodland and hedges. -New nuclear build would require spent fuel (too hot to move) to be stored on site for 160 years. This would be dangerous at Hinkley due to the limestone geology of the site and in case of an accident at the plant. 4.Health -Low level radiation is emitted by nuclear power stations this has been proved to be dangerous to young children. -Regular controlled and uncontrolled venting of radioactive particles will put the local population at risk. In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. Cancer rates in Burnham on Sea are up to five times higher than the national average. Hinkley C will add to the dangers to public health. http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/pearson.htm http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_PR_COMARE14_critique.pdf Highly radioactive waste stored on site for 160 years will increase health risks. 5. Local Jobs -EDF says several thousand people will be employed constructing Hinkley C. The Flamanville scenario show EDF use subcontractors to import foreign workers vulnerable to exploitation and are being accused by French Unions of modern day slavery. ? http://www.socialdemocrats.eu/gpes/public/detail.htm?id=135913§ion=NER&category=NEWS&startpos=21&topicid=-1&request_locale=EN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx6pcqdOa7Y 6. Democracy -EDF consultations not widely publicised. -There has been no proper national debate and the government and the industry have colluded to stop information coming out over the Fukushima nuclear disaster. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima -The sustainable development committee advised the government against nuclear. Expecting opposition the government introduced a fast track infrastructure planning programme (the IPC) -Stop Hinkley have collected 12,750 against HinkleyC. -Road signs of Hinkley C are up already giving the impression of a done deal weakening local opposition. The local council salami slicing the application gives the same impression - The whole application is based on the lie that Nuclear is a green technology and will save us from Climate Change. (Hinkley Point is on the coast of the second biggest tidal wave in the world, climate change makes coastal areas vulnerable to flood risk ) http://www.link2portal.com/council-give-go-ahead-groundworks-hinkley-point 7. Power lines - new pylons are twice the size of the existing ones ( height and width ) 8. How local is locality? -Bristol City council , Exeter and South Wales have had no input on the decision making on new nuclear. Accidents at Hinkley Point would make these areas uninhabitable and emergency services not able to cope. -This national infrastucture project hasn't had national input though it will have consequences lasting generations"

Mrs Julie Pay
"As a district councillor for the quantock ward I have concerns regarding increased traffic, and the impact on the rural area"

David Pay
"I am a resident in the area and I have concerns re traffic congestion"

Robin Child
"Severe concerns regarding the use of roads through Cannington village and the lack of any progress on the proposed bypass for the village, this is made worse due to the parking situation on this route.. Also concerns relating to the effect of the numerous heavy goods vehicles on old premises on the route. The main route currently includes a section of the A39 road from Bridgwater to Cannington. It has been proven recently that an accident on this section can close the road for up to eight hours with no practical alternative route. I do feel that no thought has been given to the practical aspect regarding transportation in this application."

Ross Edwards
"I work in the nuclear indistry, so my livliehood and the existience of my family in this beautiful part of the world, is dependent upon this project going ahead. I percieve that locally people are very keen for the development to go ahead and i believe the IPC should make a swift decision to approve the application and allow the build to begin. The benefits far outweigh the negative impacts, the knock on boost to the econmomy can only be a good thing. The handful of anti- nuclear campaigners get a disproportianate amount of effort spent engaging them when really the focus needs to be on ennsuring the proposals are right for people potentially impacted. EDF Energy have spent years making sure the application is as good as it can be. Make the right decision and don't let the politics get in the way."

John Lucas
"I am opposed to the size of the proposed workers accomodation and its close proximity to the hamlet of Shurton. I strongly support the position adopted by West Somerset Council in relation to the rolling back of the southern site boundary at an early stage in the construction process."

John Andrews on behalf of Chilton Trinity Parish Council
"Information from the EDF application and local authorities incl District Council, Bridgwater Town Council and affected Parish Councils plus experience of local residents indicates that road improvement provision proposed by EDF is inadequate to handle predicted traffic volumes. This will negatively affect the lives of residents through added journey times, increased business costs, "rat-run" nuisance to this parish, increased hazard to lives and property."

Mrs Cynthia Tayler-Webb
"The proposed development of Combwich has not taken into account the fact that this is a small, quiet village with just a village school and post office. We realise that, if Hinkley C is built, we have to make some contribution and compromise to some extent but the "industrialisation" of the proposed operation is not in keeping or sympathetic with its surroundings. There are plenty of brownfield sites and redundant commercial properties nearer Bridgwater where the proposed works could take place. It should be taken into account that life in Combwich and the character of the village would be radically changed by the effect of these proposals. Particular concerns are: Flooding risks The scale of use of the laydown facilities The number, type and timing of deliveries to the wharf Proposed new goods wharf Excessive working hours for construction and operational periods Noise, vibration and lighting Environmental effects Heavy goods vehicles Noise and light pollution"

mr stephen kilby
"i don,t want the planning permission to be granted for the building of hinkley point power station because the area concerned is peace full,and the disrupution of goods traffic etc,is just not justified. edf should build a bypass around bridgwater and cannington,to give the local villages,there peace and tranquility.somerset does,nt need any further disruption and noise.we also don,t need the dirty roads etc.the planner,s and goverment don,t have to live hear through the construction and afterwards,so its not justified at all,to grant the planning permission to go ahead.we want our peace and quite.hinkley point disrupts us bad enough now,so why should this be pushed on us.this project is all about money and back hander,s not the general public and there,right,s to a quite life."

David John Richards
"edf should be made to construct a bypass from the m5 to hinkly point other wise the tra ffic through bridgwater and cannington will be horrendous."

Mr Ashley Sinclair
"I wish to convey my support for the project.Although I live some distance away I firmly believe that this is the correct way forward for the good of the country."

William John Roberts
"Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with regards to the construction of the new facility at Hinkley Point, I totally disagree with the transport proposals set out by EDF. It is my opinion that the studies undertaken by EDF or on their behalf have been incomplete and have failed to take into account all local circumstances; this is particularly relevant to the A39 road. At meetings which have been held throughout the area this subject has been either ignored or glossed over. I have lived in the area since 1958, served as a police officer in the area and also worked locally for the best part of my life, thus I believe that in common with many others in the area I know the roads, their hazards and pitfalls. It would appear at this stage that EDF do not. In my time in the area I have seen and lived with the building of the first two power stations at Hinkley and know some of what can be expected. Unless the transport consideration can be dealt with speedily and correctly the lives of the people in the area will be unnecessarily blighted for many years to come."

Michael White
"No construction work should be started at Hinkley Point until a dedicated road is built, either from the M5 junction 23 to Hinkley Point or a northern bypass from the M5 around Bridgwater and to the west of Cannington"

Dilys Franks
"Whilst having no object to the power stations being built, I feel that EDF have obligations to the villages where the transportation and additional traffic will affect them. I chose to live in a village having spent years living in towns. When I moved to Cannington some 16 years ago it was because it is a lovely picturesque village, whilst not knowing everyone, you can guarantee a friendly "good morning, good afternoon" etc. this is something that does not happen in towns. Sadly on occasions we have accidents occur on the A39 which unforutnately has dire consequences with the "normal" traffic. The main road and country lanes become clogged for some hours which means nobody going anywhere! Either getting home or going home. The villages do need a by-pass not just for the sake of it, but because with the increase in traffic with the preparation and/or building the stations the congestion would be horrific. The haul road or by-pass would be specific to Hinkley Point - it would not be of benefit to anayone else other than Hinkley traffic. You cannot allow that amount of extra traffic without making emergency plans for getting emergency vehicles though the villages. I am proud to work at Hinkley Point but feel EDF are not listening to the locals with regard to traffic problems. The increase in traffic will ruin village life as we know it. The faceless wonders who decided the plans obviously have no regard for rural living. Probably have never been down this neck of woods to see what devastation the building with create or even care as it does not affect them. I urge you to please visit the villages to see what the increase in traffic and congestion will cause and to everyone. I feel that is the least you can do before approving the planning application. EDF keep saying it is a time factor where the haul road/by-pass is concerned (stated at many of the meetings held) but if they had put this in their origianl planning, no one would have objected and the planning would have gone through without any grumbles, and probably would have been half built by the time the application is approved? EDF are willing to throw money at many things why can they not see we only want the traffic to stay out of the villages and keep the villagers safe! The haul road/by-pass would last the lifetime of the the two stations being built plus decommissioning which will be in the region of 60 years plus is this too much to expect? Please listen to the local residents and understand just how much grief and pain this is likely to cause before agreeing to the planning application."

Marian White
"No construction work should start at Hinkley Point until a dedicated road has been built.It should form a northern bypass around Bridgwater and beyond to the west of Cannington or a dedicated road from M5 junction23 ot Hinkley Point"

Gordon Coldwell
"My concern (as a nearbye resident to the Hikley Point site) is to do with, what I (and other neighbours) consider to be a seriously inadequate main access road between Bridgwater and HP - even more so, the road between Cannington and HP. The increased traffic on the road at the end of garden already wakes us up earlier than was the case. This increased traffic has also highlighted sight problems at the T-junction adjacent to our property that provides us with access to the Hinkley Point road. I have previously provided detailed notes about these concerns by letter to EDF offices I Bridgwater and at a Sedgemoor DC meeting. Given that planning permission for the full go-ahead on the HP site is looking more and more likely I feel that it would be useful for us to speak to an appropriate representative about noise pollution at our 15th century property."

Micheal Antony John Flaxman
"It is reported that EDF have carried out the consultations according to the regulations laid down. However it is evident that the main complaint, that of the problems relating to the existing road infrastructure, has not been addressed. EDF's estimated 2700 ADDITIONAL vhicles per day will use junctions 23 and 24 on the M5 and then through Bridgwater on the A39 and the Northern Distributor Road. Then through the villages of Cannington, Combwich on to the C182 to Hinkley Point causing serious congestion on rural roads. The main concern put to EDF Management is the problem of safety to both the residents and workers should emergency vehicles be required. This has been totally ignored by EDF."

Karen Denman on behalf of David Hobbs
"1. EDF have failed to address the problems to the current overloaded road infrastructure at any of the consultation events. 2. The introduction of the estimated 750 HGV's, 680 LGV's, 900 workers busses and 400 plus private cars per day is 64% increase in the current overloaded road traffic. 3. The A39 at Puriton is already overloaded with the build of Morrisons and the huge amount of HGV vehicles now cause chaos in this area almost daily. It can take up to almost 10 minutes to exit Puriton to get onto the A39 and the heavy traffic into Bridgwater most days and especially early morning and evening are already horrendous without the extra vehicles which are planned for Hinkley. 3. Accidents on the current overloaded roads have caused closure for up to 6 hours 4. The M5 route to Hinkley Point proposed by EDF are single carriage roads which are already often grid locked under normal conditions and heavily grid locked in the summer months. 5. The increase in traffic will bring an estimated total of over 6900 vehicles per working day through the main road of Cannington Village, which route passes the College, infant school, Post Office and local shop which will not only endanger residents of the village but may also interfere/restrict emergency vehicles attending in surrounding areas as well as any emergencies at the existing power station or works in the new construction. 6. A dedicted road from Dunball to Hinkley Point would not only provide safer roads for all but would also reduce fuel, transport costs and pollution. It would also be less than half of the distance of the current proposed route and would also mean less road junctions, pedestrian crossings and narrow roads which ultimately would more safer."

Claire Montague
"I feel that the area will be irrevocably changed by the development. The light ,noise and dust pollution will be immense. My property backs onto the proposed site and at the moment we are in total darkness at night. We can listen to wildlife at night, owls and foxes, and the constant noise from machinery will destroy this. I am very concerned about the increase in traffic on the single lane road outside my house, there will be an influx of white vans and workers travelling to the site. The shift change patterns that are proposed will change at midnight and will mean that the noise from traffic will prevent us from sleeping. I know that I will be unable to open windows due to the noise from 24 hour working, 7 days a week. I am also very worried about the proposed campus for workers. The hamlet of Shurton is small, offers no facilities and increasing the population by 500 people will be devastating. The excess noise and light caused by the campus will destroy the peace and tranquility previously enjoyed in the hamlet. EDF have not proposed any walkway or cycle path along Shurton Lane that is regularly used by cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians, I feel that the increase in traffic will mean that accidents will just be a matter of time. As a regular dog walker I am concerned that any earthworks should be landscaped as quickly as possible from the village end to minimise disruption form dirt, noise and the visual impact."

Peter Montague
"As a resident in close proximity to the development I have specific concerns that have not been addressed satisfactorily by the consultation process. The worker campus is not acceptable to be placed in such close proximity to very small Hamlets whose population will be dwarfed by the influx of workers for whom there a re no services. Further more the application claims that this campus will reduce traffic this is unlikely due to workers travelling into Bridgwater/Taunton and the motorway. The light pollution at night has not been specifically addressed satisfactorily - statements claiming state of the art equipment will be used are disputed when evidence of the lighting for Flammanville in France shows a dramatic detriment locally. The roads network shows no appreciable improvement and the villages will be particularly affected as is evidenced by the outage traffic for Hinkley Point B site which is barely tolerable due to the relatively short duration, it disrupts sleep and makes it impossible to leave windows open that face the lane. There are no road improvements to maintain pedestrian horse rider and cyclist safety, the Hinkley road suffers accidents on a regular basis and the proposed traffic increases will increase the hazard and risk to local people and workers. The road from the M5 that was in the initial application is an absolute necessity. The wharf would benefit by reducing the road use for the prep works but will not be completed in time so the population suffer a lorry carrying spoil every 4 minutes 11 hours per day - ridiculous project planning and totally unacceptable. The preparation works to be started must be permissioned only when there is an absolute undertaking to pursue to project completion or if the project stalls or is abandoned then the land must be immediately landscaped."

Mrs Susan Goss
"Noise and Vibration. As a local resident I have concerns regarding construction noise especially with the potential of 24 hour working as this will prevent my family and other residents enjoying the peace of our homes and gardens for the next 8/10 years. Traffic.Residents of the local hamlets will be unable to access the C182 in safety due to the high volumes of construction traffic. The proposed limited improvements to the Clayland Corner junction will barely address these issues and the lack of improvement to the equally hazardous Shurton Junction is extremely worrying. EDF's proposal to route Williton Park and Ride traffic through our local lanes and villages, is also of extreme concern. On-site Campus. Located much too close to the hamlets and number of workers to be located will swamp the local populace. Plus no planned legacy use. Public Rights of Way. Some 14kms of footpaths will be lost as a result of this project. Edf have proposals to replace some of these but is dependent on lan-owner permissions-which are historically difficult/impossible to obtain."

Andrew Blackmore
"I have no objection to the development of Hinkley Point C, however I think it vital that we get the infastructure in place to support it. There should be a Northern bypass from Dunball (Junction 23 of M5) to Combwich. The current Cannington bypass is the cheapest, shortest strip of road EDF could deliver. It will still require all of the Hinkley traffic to go through Bridgwater and takes no account of future rises in traffic or the additional homes already being built in Bridgwater. Hinkley C will be a major area of industrial activity for over 50 years, we should get the access sorted before we start."

Jamie Driver
"I fully support this application as it will provide a huge boost to the local area and will provide employment for many years to come. Steps to mitigate the impact of the project during construction appear to be well considered however the issue over potential traffic congestion needs to be fully aired. I am concerned that the S106 agreements associated with the enabling works and the DCO application appear to be focused on providing funds to support council workers rather than being used to support the local community and businesses. I would hope that the IPC will consider this during their asssessment of the DCO application"

Kevan Frew
"Whilst having no issue with the actual go ahead of Hinkley point C, without the correct infastructure and transportion routes in place this plan will adversely affect both my property and I. The roads in this area are already antiquated for modern purpose and to add this mass of transportation without making provision is just naive. EDF may have a big sword of money to wield but surely the rights of the people in this country to go about their daily business outweighs this. I firmly believe that without readdressing the issues, other businesses will not to come to the area and road injuries and deaths will increase. As for infrastucture, Bridgwater already has a reputation as a bit of a backwards town with poor facilities, amenities and poor government, with the greatest will in the world without dealing with the underlying infrastuctural issues the place will become like the wild west and property etc will become further devalued."

Jeanette Taylor
"I disagree with the proposed planning application for the following reasons: EDF have totally ignored the resolution passed by S.D.C on 24 08 2011 re traffic planning thus demonstrating their total contempt for the local people. If thir plan is carried out, not only will the local lifestyle be destroyed but the many workers at hinkley and the local people will be endangered by the lack of proper emergency access for all emergency services to the area due to the clogging increase of traffic on the the existing poor roads from EDF construction traffic. The only safe plan would be a dedicated northern route from J23 M5 to Hinkley. No building work should be started untill this has been done."

John Findlay
"I have no fundamental objection to the building of the new station at Hinkley Point C and believe that it is necessary, along with other technologies, in order to maintain a continuity of supply and reduce carbon emmisions. However it appears that EDF energy are stubbornly determined to proceed with this construction whist ignoring the main and obvious objection to the project which is the increased traffic and major safety and congestion issue that will result from these plans. It is plainly obvious to all people in the area who regularly use this already overstretched infrastucture that the use of the existing A39 and proposed Cannington bypass will be too little and too late to prevent serious impact with the distinct probability of increased fatalities occuring on roads in and around the Bridgwater and Cannington area. It is also obvious that the best and most benificial route for the area is a direct link road from Jct 23 Dunball to Hinkley point. However most people believe that their best and true interests will not be served by this process or respected by EDF."

Stephen Cornwell
"As a resident in Cannington I am totally dissatified with the transport arrangements that are planned for the movement of people aned materials to and from the site. Accepting the fact there is a wharf at Combwich there is still a huge task ahead of the contractors and as far as I can there will be no other route they can use except the A39 west of Bridgwater. this road is already heavily used by holiday and commuting traffic and even if the work vehicles associated with the development go roung the village there are bound to be huge queues to get through the town even when using the new northern distributor road. A coursory look at the map of the area will indicate that the distance between the Dunball exit from the M5 (number 23) is only a short distance from the main road to the new development. There will be cost involved in the bridge but the alternative means a huge, though different cost for us residents and others living in the area. I accept we need to reduce carbon but the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere by vehicles going nowhere as they wait to get through Bridgwater (as weel as the damge to health and infrastructure) is just one more illogical aspect of this development if it proceeds without that bridge. I ask you to make its cponstruction a condition of granting aproval."

Cheryl Hall
"I am from Cannington and my Family still resides there..as soon as I have finished my work abroad was looking forward to returning home..Not for it to be destroyed in my absence. This is an outrageous plan that has no consideration for the people and property involved. Listen to the people and do the right thing for once. I wish I was there to be more involved as this will directly affect my children's and my future plans."

Elderwood-Richards
"we strongly object to the use of nuclear power as we feel that it is unnecessary, in the light of alternatives, and unsafe. No power station, however built, ca be guaranteed 100% safe and the potential consequences of any accident are too great to make any risk acceptable."

Hinkley Point Cyclists
"Since 2009 I and the members of the cyclists group (Hinkley) and a local community sustainability group have been campaigning to build and promote cycling within a large part of the Somerset areas. To cut a long story short, we have made contact with EDF new build, Sustrans, Environment Agency, Bristol Port authority, Highways Agency & Someret Council County, etc and currently have strong plans to build cycles paths within many areas, including Hinkley Point site, the coast, Steart Peninsula, Combwich, Cannington and Bridgwater Areas (I am a member of the EDF Transport Forum) and currently there is funds avaiable to carry our cycle improvements. Two aspects we need to promote further: 1) The obvious need to continue to 'fully' get people out of thier cars and on to safe cycle routes. The transport logistics, as you will be well aware are going to be a nightmare! 2) We need to link up our local town & villages, in order to finally 'join the dots' we MUST have a link between Cannington and the village of Wembdon (no plans currently exist)"

DR Rowland Dye
"I want to object to the building of the HinkleyC nuclear power station on several very important grounds that I will outline below. 1. The predicted construction traffic that could be as high as a vehicle every 40 seconds through the local village of Cannington will destroy the quality of life and the value of property of the villagers for at least the next 10 years. 2. Green Audit has independently examined samples from the land on the proposed site for the power station and has found evidence that it is contaminated with enriched uranium. http://www.stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf 3. The site proposed for development is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA), a Site of Community Importance (SCI), a site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) as well as a wetland area of international importance with irreplaceable woodlands and hedges. Such an important natural area should not be trashed by huge industrial development, especially a nuclear power station that requires highly contaminated wastes to be stored at the site for at least 160 years. 4. Low level radiation is emitted by nuclear power stations and this is particularly dangerous to young children in the locality. The KIKK study carried out in Germany in 2008 showed a 1.6 increase in cancers and 2.2 fold increase in leukaemia in children living within a 5 mile radius of nuclear power stations. http://www.IIrc.org/health/subtopic/pearson.htm http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLAPR COMARE14critique.pdf 5. Democracy is being undermined .Hardly any body ( local or national) knows about the proposed development of HinkleyC and those that do think it’s a “done deal” ( mostly due to the local signage pointing to HinkleyC) This stifling public debate about an issue of local, national and international importance.. EDF’s activities have not been widely publicised and there needs to be a frank local and national debate about nuclear power before any permission is given. In the post Fukushima world, many members of the public are extremely anxious and sceptical about this extremely dangerous technology. I therefore respectfully ask the IPC to suspend its decision making process about this very controversial project until a proper public debate or even referendum has taken place"

Aubrey Knowles
"I am concerned about the construction phase of the project. As I understand it, EDF have not given sufficient thought or guarantees about traffic movements to the site, particularly through the hamlet of Shurton. I am concerned about the effects of the site camp which is proposed near Shurton. I am concerned about the proposed 24-hour construction."

Lesley Flash on behalf of West Hinkley Action Group
"Note that West Hinkley Action Group represents the views of the four Stogursey hamlets (Shurton, Burton, Knighton and Wick) comprising 150-200 households closest to the southern boundary of the HPC site. *Absolutely opposed to hostel as being a social ghetto which is too large, too ugly, too close to hamlets, too intrusive visually and in terms of light pollution, noise, additional traffic both of service personnel and residents. *Said additional traffic most likely to use local lanes which have are often barely one-car-wide, have no pavement, are unlighted at night and are the main pedestrian arteries much used also by horse-riders, cyclists and dog-walkers; these users will be forced onto these lanes more than ever following the closure of 14 km of local footpath; traffic associated with construction likely to ignore speed limits and to drive dangerously around blind corners. EdF do not propose any control. *Likely duration of construction prevents access to hinterland of hamlets for over a decade; said rural hinterland of enormous amenity value to residents already disadvantaged and deeply depressed by future proximity of industrial development; residents want roll-back of fence and restoration of landscape as construction proceeds and immmediate local restoration and replacement of lost footpaths which areaccessible without needing to use a car to get to them. * Proposed compensation, mitigation and conditions no way proportionate to impact of development and loss of way of life about to be inflicted on community *Absolute opposition to 24/7 working; continuous impact of noise, light, traffic will be insupportable over period of development and have severe ieffect on health and well-being not least because the open air life, which all residents value, will be rendered hideous and in effect unavailable. *Effect of construction overall will drastically destabilise rural community which relies on established social networks to function effectively. The property price support scheme, although a meagre relief to individual households, will unravel these networks even further; one third of households have already registered a precuationary interest in scheme. *No main construction traffic, not a bus not a van not a car, should be routed through main village or anywhere other than along the A39 and the C182. *Deeply uneasy about further storage of radioactive waste on site so much more toxic and so much closer to habitation than exisiting storage."

David Fowler
"There is absolutely no way construction should be allowed to commence until a by-pass is constructed from the M5 junction 23 directly to the site."

Nigel Robson
"I am a local resident living within one and a half miles of the site. My home fronts onto a lane which may become a ratrun to the site, will be adversely affected by night-time lighting, dust, noise and other pollution, traffic noise and damage, extended and protracted working hours, increased crime and loss of amenity resulting from demographic distortions caused by proposals to house up to 700 workers on site and a significant loss of property value because of the nature, scope and disruption caused by the works. It is possible that the works will exceed my lifespan, meaning that I will have to live with all the above for the rest of my life."

Mrs Janet Child
"That the consultation was a sham, whilst representations were made it was obvious that EDF had their own agenda and paid lip service only to those representations. That a bypass for Cannington should be provided prior to any construction taking place at Hinkley Point due to the danger and annoyance to Cannington residents from heavy goods vehicles having to use narrow village roads pending a bypass being provided. That the extra heavy goods vehicle traffic being put on the A39 Bridgwater to Cannington road will place a heavy strain on that road, and will isolate all villages in that area in the event of a serious traffic incident occurring on that road due to non provision of an alternative route. That due to a proposal by the BBC to cease all AM frequency broadcasts to the area east of the Quantocks on BBC Somerset, in the event of a serious incident occuring at the nuclear power station, no information will be able to be given to residents not having DAB radio and no alternative warnings are proposed within the documentation. This could affect up to 40,000 people."

IG Holland
"This will make visiting family members who leave in the immediate vincinity of the site a lot more difficult"

Mark Christie
"As a resident of the Quantocks, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I am concerned about the increased level and flow of traffic through Bridgwater and the resultant displacement of traffic onto the minor roads through the Quantock hills. Living to the west of Bridgwater I am daily user of the roads through Bridgwater as a means of accessing the M5 at Junction 23. EDF’s proposals are solely based around their use of the Roads in Bridgwater and the impact on local residents within Bridgwater, but take no account for the road users accessing Bridgwater from the surrounding Parishes and districts further afield such as Taunton Deane. Many villages on the Quantocks access the A39 from side roads and there is no provision in any of their plans to provide a means of access onto the A39. The Roads into Bridgwater also struggle to cope with existing weight of traffic. And I often experience severe delays travelling through the town. The reason for the delays are often down to everyday issues such as broken down vehicles blocking access to junctions and are problems that cannot be solved just by widening junctions. EDF’s proposals to install a distribution point at J24 are also a major concern. As the increased traffic will increase the time traffic takes to travel into Bridgwater from the south, with even more traffic being placed on a single lane road into town. Even with current traffic levels, as a resident of the Quantocks I am already experiencing an increase in traffic being displaced on to the roads through the Quantock Hills because of the slow travel times from J24 to Bridgwater and any further increase in traffic will see a further displacement of traffic onto the Quantocks using roads that have not been constructed to cope with a higher level commuter and commercial traffic. EDF’s traffic management plans do not include any proposals to limit the displacement of traffic and from that I can only concluded that EDF’s plans are counting on this displacement of traffic for their own benefit at the expense of residents and users of the Quantock Hills. EDF’s traffic management plans also only state the flow of traffic to and from the consolidation sites to Hinkley Point. No real assessment has been made on the amount of traffic that would be travelling to the consolidation points from across the district. It is clear that they have underestimated the increased amount of traffic that the project will generate. As experienced from the recent closure of the M5 on the 5th November 2011 the primary alternative route for the M5 is through Bridgwater and North Petherton. If at any future date the M5 has to close and the traffic has to be diverted, the increased traffic caused by EDF would make this untenable, which would be impact not only the local area but Southwest as a whole."

J Lewis
"We are seriously concerned regarding the huge increase in traffic on the C182 road, the only access to Hinkley point, approximately 200yds from our house. This is already a very busy road for its size and suitability, with the existing traffic going to Hinkley point and will become extremely hazardous and noisy with the greatly increased traffic load proposed. It is not only the route from Cannington(C182) that will be affected, but the A39 from Bridgwater, already very busy at certain times of the day and particularly during holiday periods. Bridgwater itself will also, already suffering from traffic congestion at busy periods, become severly congested with the considerable proposed increase in traffic. The second major concern and positive objection is the establishment of a workers accomodation block for 500 people within half a mile of our property. It is obvious that they will not stay there when not working and the considerable increase in traffic through our village on a narrow country lane will be dangerous and intrusive to local residents. It is already used as a short cut from the A39 by Hinkley traffic and this will only get worse despite the assurance from EDF that they will discourage their staff and contractors from using it. Should the construction of the new power stations be approved, we would wish to see the following action taken. 1. NO workers campus at the proposed site at Shurton. 2. A vehicle weight restriction on the road through Shurton and those leading to it to stop HGV'S using it, also an enforced 20mph speed limit through Shurton up to the junction with the C182, including traffic calming measures. 3. An enforced overal speed limit on the C182 of 40mph to increase safety and minimise road noise."

Scott J Boyd
"I believe that the transport proposals submitted by EDF are completely inadequate, ill conceived comments and concerns raised by the community during consultations have been totally ignored. My parents live in the village of Cannington and I try to visit them whenever possible. The current level of traffic takes me as long to negotiate through Bridgwater, along the A39 to Cannington as it takes me to travel from Yeovil to Bridgwater. I have found the A39 to be impassable on occasions due to accidents and any detour around the side roads (mere country lanes) to be an absolute nightmare. The proposed increase of volumes and tonnage by EDF is in excess of 50%, the bulk of which will be Heavy Goods Vehicles. This can only be to the detriment of the local community and their visitors. Please do not consider this application until EDF have provided you with a comprehensive study of the requested Bridgwater/Hinkley bypass and valid reasons in your minds why such a route should be discounted. I understand that this information has been requested on numerous occasions by the community but EDF have constantly refused to provide such answers. Thank you S J Boyd"

William Anthiny Bellamy
"1. Construction Traffic (important as affecting locals) - Traffic Vehicle movement in Cannington every 40 seconds during an 11 hour working day, purely for Hinkley Point C construction, in addition to normal Hinkley, and other, local traffic. - Villagers saying consultation on traffic was not done properly by EDF. - Damage to Houses by vibration of traffic not taken into consideration by EDF. - 93% of Cannington villagers do not want the EDF traffic through their village. - These are unbearable living conditions for villagers as Hinkley C is scheduled for a minimum of ten years construction. Plus overwhelming traffic pollution - Villagers are against compulsory purchase of their homes and worry about the devaluation of their property.. -should there be a nuclear accident at Hinkley Point traffic congestion would hamper evacuation process. 2.Contamination of land -EDF's commissioned AMEC to take samples and make measurements of radioactivity at various locations on the proposed site for HinkleyC. Green Audit independently examined the data to see if there were any radiological safety issues. There is evidence of enriched Uranium pollution on the land. (!) http://www.stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf 3. Land Status - designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) - a Site of Community Importance (SCI) - the estuary is also designated as a wetland of international importance - a Site of Special Scientific Interest.SSSIs (e.g. the Gwent Levels SSSI complex) - Irreplaceable ancient woodland and hedges. -New nuclear build would require spent fuel (too hot to move) to be stored on site for 160 years. This would be dangerous at Hinkley due to the limestone geology of the site and in case of an accident at the plant. 4.Health -Low level radiation is emitted by nuclear power stations this has been proved to be dangerous to young children. -Regular controlled and uncontrolled venting of radioactive particles will put the local population at risk. In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. Cancer rates in Burnham on Sea are up to five times higher than the national average. Hinkley C will add to the dangers to public health. http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/pearson.htm http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_PR_COMARE14_critique.pdf Highly radioactive waste stored on site for 160 years will increase health risks. 5. Local Jobs -EDF says several thousand people will be employed constructing Hinkley C. The Flamanville scenario show EDF use subcontractors to import foreign workers vulnerable to exploitation and are being accused by French Unions of modern day slavery. http://www.socialdemocrats.eu/gpes/public/detail.htm?id=135913§ion=NER&category=NEWS&startpos=21&topicid=-1&request_locale=EN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx6pcqdOa7Y 6. Democracy -EDF consultations not widely publicised. -There has been no proper national debate and the government and the industry have colluded to stop information coming out over the Fukushima nuclear disaster. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima -The sustainable development committee advised the government against nuclear. Expecting opposition the government introduced a fast track infrastructure planning programme (the IPC) -Stop Hinkley have collected 12,750 against HinkleyC. -Road signs of Hinkley C are up already giving the impression of a done deal weakening local opposition. The local council salami slicing the application gives the same impression - The whole application is based on the lie that Nuclear is a green technology and will save us from Climate Change. (Hinkley Point is on the coast of the second biggest tidal wave in the world, climate change makes coastal areas vulnerable to flood risk ) http://www.link2portal.com/council-give-go-ahead-groundworks-hinkley-point 7. Power lines - new pylons are twice the size of the existing ones ( height and width ) 8. How local is locality? -Bristol City council , Exeter and South Wales have had no input on the decision making on new nuclear. Accidents at Hinkley Point would make these areas uninhabitable and emergency services not able to cope. -This national infrastucture project hasn't had national input though it will have consequences lasting generations. Fukushima and Chernobyl have shown that radiation knows no borders."

Cllr Robert Curtis
"After the shocking events in Japan, it seems only common sense that plans for any new nuclear plants in the UK should be withdrawn. It also seems prudent that if China, Switzerland, Germany and now Japan have safety concerns then the British Government should also take heed and review the safety concerns of people living in close proximity of Nuclear plants. Hinkley is less than 15 miles from the major population centres of Barry, Cardiff and South Wales. If an accident were to take place at Hinkley B or C then with a Northernly wind of just 15mph, the people of South Wales would have just 1 hour to evacuate the area! I have already raised the fact that the Bristol Channel was devastated by a tsunami which hit in 1606. Nature has a habit of repeating itself, therefore, we must respect that nature cannot be controlled. I also have concerns about the end use of the spent nuclear fuel and the target that this may present to any determined terrorist organisations in the future. Finally, our Government must now take time out to investigate whether there are alternatives to nuclear energy new build. Safety of the public should be their overriding concern. I strongly believe that renewable energy such as wind, wave, tidal, thermal ground, wood and solar linked with better insulation and energy saving schemes could easily fill our energy gap...if just the political will was there!"

Sue Flint
"I am concerned about the unreliability of the applicant. Details will be supplied at a later time."

Ian Critchley Ltd
"Ian Critchley Ltd Nuclear Leadership Coaching and Consulting We fully support the application on the understanding that the design, construction, commissioning and operation of Hinkley Point C will be independently overseen and approved by regulatory authorities, and that the negative impact on residential communities during construction are minimised. We support the application because it will stimulate the local economy with the demand for specialist skills and support services as well as providing well paid jobs and valuable contracts. Skills and careers The proposed new build and operation of Hinkley Point C represents a great opportunity for young people seeking professional development and long-term careers in Somerset. There is an opportunity to provide skilled jobs in civil construction and engineering as well as up to 900 highly skilled long-term nuclear industry careers. The construction, engineering and allied works that follow a successful application will represent a 10-year investment on a scale that is rare for Somerset and is unlikely to be repeated to the benefit of the current generation. Local business opportunities and improved business capabilities The build and servicing of a new power station will create the opportunity for local people to develop new services that will be needed. The opportunities to benefit from supporting the build and operation of the new station are many and varied. Small contracts to smaller local businesses will give be very welcome at a time when many are struggling to survive in the present economic climate. Larger businesses successfully winning work will be able to retain and develop their workforces, which in turn means opportunities for others in the training and skills development sector. An investment in the skill levels of workers and leaders will strengthen any business for the future beyond Hinkley Point C, so this really is an investment in a long term future.. Energy Security for the South West There is a well-known threat to the UK's energy supplies that nuclear new-build provides the only viable solution to. Nuclear power stations will be built and Somerset has a golden opportunity to benefit from it that must not be passed by. Successive UK Governments have committed to supporting the increased supply of nuclear power with Hinkley Point C being at the forefront of investment by the private sector. This investment should not be unduly delayed."

Mr David Barge
"Whilst I am not against EDF building the power station I do think that they are making light of the impact caused by the building of it. In particular the increased volume of traffic, cars coaches and heavy goods vehicles that will congest the roads from North Petherton junction 24 to north of Bridgwater and on the roads to the power station site. As the area will be significantly affected for 6 to 10 years I think the proposed bypass should be built and all the small improvements at road junctions should be completed and operational before construction work begins on the actual power station. Too often developers and the councils promise but do not deliver!"

The West Somerset Community College
"The application for the development of Hinkley Point C is hugely desirable for the economic growth and development of Somerset. The identified benefits in terms of socio economic development and the work force stratgey are extremely exciting. The strategies identify how to maiximise benefit for local employees and employers. The wider opportunities provided by the supply chain are immense and will provide local /somerset based businesses with and unparalleled opportunity for growth. The invesment in training in The West Somerset Community College in terms of the Hinkley Ready and Hinkley Enterprise Porjects will have lifechanging opportunities for the young people and adults of west somerset.Theses developments are truly innovative and inspirational. The presence of such a build in the locality will also provide a huge resource for the STEM project Inspire. The motivation and positive impact will help to engage young people in education and training. Inward investment is also a positive by product of this build and is much needed in the county."

Sarah Jansons
"I do not believe that EDF's transport proposals have any merit or take into account the traffic gridlock which will occur as a result of their proposals. in addition I believe that EDF have failed to take into account the extremely deleterious affect that the Western Bypass to Cannington, in its current form, will have on certain of the villagers who live on Chads Hill. There is a solution, to put part of the road to the south west of where it joins Park Lane, within a cutting. EDF's transport consultant has provided technical drawings showing that a 3m cutting is feasible. I believe that EDF should take some account of the misery they are about to inflict on these Cannington residents and provide the cutting we have repeatedly requested."

Anne Cleveland
"Watchet is a tourist town all year round, a sight of scientific interest and unless transport issues are tackled prior to ANY development it will seriously deter visitors from using our already congested roads. The tidal rise and fall is such that concerns over the jetty development and subsequent changes to the flows and effects on coastal developments needs to be sufficiently explained in plain english. Mitigation would be better viewed if it's use was expanded to include a crossing to Wales as has so often been mooted, to expand business and tourist links. Youth services are being severly reduced by councils and a mitigation of increasing the areas facilities would improve the young's expectations of a good outcome for their futures, and a positive attitude to training options for future employment. Housing developments for the workers should leave a legacy of affordable homes, but affordable should mean well built and environmentally efficient and wellbeing homes for the future. attempts should be made to initiate the rail links to Minehead with the Steam Railway and National Rail. ."

Alison Carter
"I am a resident of Cannington whose property is on the route to Hinkley Point and i have grave concerns regarding the impact of traffic on the village and indeed the town of Bridgwater if the plans are passed without the proviso that a bypass or dedicated route is built prior to construction of Hinkley C. The A39 is already a well known accident blackspot,Cannington has a large FE college with numerous students and agricultural traffic passing through. I find it unbelieveable that this planning application is even being considered without due consideration to the traffic impact on the locality.I believe there will be a negative impact on house valuations in the area and particularly those properties adjoining the main road to Hinkley.There is absolutely no doubt that EDF should provide a bypass prior to commencement of the building."

Alona De Havilland
"I disagree with the application as it stands as I do not believe adequate infrastructure provision has been made for any potential evacuations required should there be a significant fault at Hinkley Point. Whilst there may be a full evacuation plan and safety assessment in place EDF have not been able to provide any information to residents regarding their safety and potential evacation if an incident occurs. No information regarding how the Hinkley site would be accessed by emergency services whilst ensuring escape routes remain available for the safe evacuation of residents in the Bridgwater conurbation has been provided. There is inadequate road communicatons throughout the South West (as evidenced during the M5 closure on 5-7 November 2011) and I do not believe it would be possible for the population to be safely evacuated should an incident occur. I therefore strongly recommend that further traffic plans are considered that allow for full evacuation of the area, and that risk assessments and traffic flow models are run. Should a serious incident occur the evacuation would require residents in a 50 mile radius to be alerted, which would involve the cities of Bristol, Cardiff and Exeter."

Mags Gooding
"I believe that this construction will seriously effect my emotional and psychological health and well being. I live on the southern boundry and will be greatly affected by noise, traffic, light pollution and fel that my way of living (spending most of my leisure time outdoors) will be spoiled beyond recognition. I do not believe EDF should be able to ruin the environment in this way."

Mike Fisher
"As a resident of Combwich I have grave concerns regarding the proposed extension of the Combwich Wharf and the development of an extensive freight laydown area. Combwich is a small residential village surrounded by greenfield land, primarily used for agriculture and the proposed development would change the nature of the complete area. I understand and agree with the need to use the already constructed wharf for the transportation of AILs. However the current proposals extend far beyond this operational model. There is no need to start using the wharf for bulk materials, these can be taken by sea directly to the site. The use of the laydown facility for road deliveries is not necessary, they can be taken directly to the site. The scale of the laydown facility with the associated parking and buildings is totally disproportionate to the size of Combwich. The working hours of both the construction and operational phases of the wharf and laydown facility are not in anyway matching with the village and the associated effect of both noise, vibration and lighting would completely destroy our community environment. An acceptable arrangement would be to limit the usage of the wharf to the transportation of AILs, not bulk materials and the laydown facility to be substantially scaled back and to be only used for AILs transported through the wharf. Any road related deliveries should be stored at the site. The operational hours should be standard working hours."

Mary Bartlett
"We agree with the application because electricity must be generated. However house holds on the immediate fringes of the development are mainly concerned with huge amount of extra traffic that will ensue . Listed below are the very basic things we consider should be done to mitigate the enormous disruption to the very local area. 1.Change the SATNAV instructions from the A39 to Hinkley Point to avoid the village of Stogursey and the hamlets of Burton and Shurton. 2.Impose speed restrictions on the C182 from Cannington to the power station of 40MPH 3.Impose speed restrictions of 20MPH and road calming on the lane from the C182 via Shurton to Stogursey. 4.Take basic steps to prevent the regular flooding on the above lane"

Stephen Bryant
"I am disappointed that despite numerous representations by the people living in Cannington and Bridgwater, EDF have closed their minds to an adequate solution to the transport problems that will arise as a result of building and servicing Hinckley C. To those of us that live, work and travel locally the additional traffic that is planned for the current road infra-structure will overload an already stretched road system. The proposed bypass around Cannington is the simplest, cheapest option but lacks forsight and committment. The only sensible solution is a bypass which diverts future Hinckley traffic around both Bridgwater and Cannington. This has become known as the Northern Bypass and should be given very serious consideration by the IPC."

Jean Kearn
"My local knowledge is down to the fact that I visit my parents who live in the area of Cannington. My family is involved in swimming and we regularly visit swimming meetings held in the area. My disagreement towards this application is based on the following. 1} Traffic congestion is already at peak and the proposed increases will add considerably to the existing congestion. 2} Delays and safety will be put at risk in the event of accidents, due to the fact that there is only one way in and out between The M5 and Hinkley. This is single carriageway through residential and country roads. In the event of a nuclear disaster access for emergency vehicles would be denied due to a massive panic gridlock which would be instantaneous. My views are that this application should be rejected unless satisfactory alternative routes can be made available to secure the safety of residents, workers and visitors."

Joanna Jackson
"As a resident of Wembdon Village I am extremely concerned about the detrimental effect I believe this application will have on our village. The road alterations put Wembdon at risk of becoming a significant rat-run for traffic wishing to avoid the tail backs and congestion caused by the extra traffic EDF will send along the A39. Wembdon Village infrastructure is inadequate to cope with any extra vehicles. Additional traffic - in particular HGV's - at the Whitegates Roundabout poses a significant safety risk to my children as they cross this roundabout to access Haygrove secondary school. There is no crossing in place and children are frequently missed by drivers in these large vehicles. My childs head only reaches the wheel arch! All other pedestrians inc wheelchair, mobility and buggy users are equally at risk. The noise pollution is detrimental to the environment of a rural village. I have considerable concerns about the suitability of the current road and transport proposals to cope in the event of a major incident or accident at the new Hinkley site. A North Bridgwater Bypass must be considered the only appropriate option."

AM Sensors Ltd
"AM Sensors Ltd is an independant company who support the building of Hinkley Point C, we believe it is good for local business and base load electricity supply to the National Grid. We look forward to seeing its completion."

Neil Hannaford
"It leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth when I think of the fact that EDF have been ignorant for many years now on the viability of a proposed Northern Bypass, WHY ??????? Is it purely down to cost of investigating at this stage ? How can this proposal proceed when this avenue which has been known, has not been fully explored ? This will be a permanent change not something that you can look at and think, "you know what perhaps...... " This should be about people NOT money. The people in Cannington are not stupid, we understand that as the population grows we need more power supply. As the previous and current governments have decided that the best value for money route was Nuclear here we are!!!! **We just want the Northern Bypass please, insist that it be looked at please!!! Don't make people's lives miserable all for the sake of that lovely thing called money. It is a really beautiful area, very special in many simplistic ways, just walk around it if you have not done, you will love it as I do. Life is too short not to have something to enjoy such as where you live. I have lived in the village for 7 years and have 2   children aged   and   who attend the local school. I love living in Cannington, there is a real sense of community which will be shattered. For once will some do something for the people in this country!!!!!!!!"

Thomas Boyd
"I regularly visit my parents in the area. Due to current congestion on the roads of this area, I often spend hours sitting in traffic jams. These jams are caused by volume of traffic, road works and accidents. There is only one route from the M5 , through Bridgwater along the A39 to the villages and on to Hinkley Point. This is single carriageway, through residential areas and country lanes never designed to carry the extra volume or tonnage EDF propose sending along these roads. The disruption to the lives of the local community and the inevitable destruction of an area of outstanding beauty is not warranted when there are other alternatives. Apart from these two factors, the safety of the community, visitors and Hinkley workforce are being jeopardised. Any road holdups deny access to the area by the three emergency services as there is only one access route. In the event of a nuclear disaster at Hinkley, the entire ares would be a massive car park within minutes due to panic. The alternative to this chaos would be a direct link from the M5, Junction 23 to Hinkley Point, a route suggested by the Barnes Report of 1989. I understand that the local communities and authorities have all requested EDF to consider this option. Again, my understanding is that EDF have constantly failed to confirm one way or the other whether they have considered this option, and if so, their reasons for rejection. It appears to me that EDF have never really listened to the community during their so called consultations but merely paid lip service, never intending to do anything but follow their original agenda. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I BELIEVE THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE REJECTED UNTIL EDF CAN PRODUCE A SATISFACTORY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT SHOWING GOOD REASON WHY THE REQUESTED BRIDGWATER BYPASS COULD NOT BE PUT IN PLACE."

Alan Fergusson
"I have concerns about the planning and building control monitoring of this application and wish to consider more details of the application."

Eileen Matthews
"Regarding the above application . I am extremely concerned about the inadequate access to Cannington from Bridgwater already, without the additional traffic from the proposed construction of the new power station at Hinkley Point. I am certainly not against the power station, in fact I feel it would help the local economy. My grave concern is that when there is an accident on the A39 especially between Wembdon turning and the Cannington roundabout, this isolates the village and therefore lives are at risk as Fire and Ambulances cannot reach Cannington without major diversions through very narrow and totally unsuitable minor roads. Therefore a bypass from the Bristol road to the Hinkley road is much needed regardless of wether the power station is built or not."

Amanda Collin
"I live in the high street and have two children who attend the local school and a baby who will be attending the school in a few years. My biggest concern over the construction of the new station at Hinkley is the impact to the traffic in the village, the pavements are very narrow and trecherous and will be very dangerous with the large construction vehichles. I also worry about the affect the lorries will have to our home, our house is very near the road and already the house rattles with all of the lorries and the extra traffic will cause this to be unbearable. I also travel through Bridgwater to get to work and already the town is gridlocked with traffic, the town as it is will be impossible to manage all of the extra traffic. I feel the only solution is for a new road direct from the m5 completely bypassing Bridgwater and the village to be built before the construction takes place."

Andrew Collin
"I own property alongside the road that the construction vehicles use. There constant use will cause structual damage to the building. I also have children that use the pavements along this road and am concerned with their use of the road as vehicles have passed me exceeding the speed limit."

Miles Richards
"I am a supporter of the development of nuclear energy, as I see it being an answer, albeit contentious, as a possible solution to the global energy crisis, although I am not wholly convinced! But not in my back yard! The of undoubted benefits to employment opportunities (to locals) in the area, do not outweigh the clear damage (housing & related infrastructures) these developments will have on this whole area of rural outstanding natural beauty; the increased risk of crime in the area and the expansion of urban Bridgwater is a great worry, leading to a potential invasion of privacy."

Susan Barton
"I own a property in the village of Combwich which will be severely affected for several years during the process of building the new power station, and during the processes of dismantling existing build by: increase heavy goods traffic on the road from Bridgwater to Hinkley passing the (only) entrance to Combwich village increase of private car and bus transport to be provided for additional workers at Hinkley additional noise from the increase traffic and building works proposed for the Hinkley Wharf (known locally as the Pill) inconvenience from the above concerns regarding the increase traffic on the single lane road between Bridgwater and Hinkley particularly in the event of accidents, traffic jams etc and the possible delays to traffic to the village eg buses, delivery vehicles, emergency service vehicles, authority rubbish collections etc. affect on the existing traffic problems within Bridgwater which is already overloaded during the summer period by tourists using the A39 to the south west affect on village life"

Somerset's Freight Quality Partnership
"Somerset’s Freight Quality Partnership is a group that brings Somerset County Council together with the haulage industry, their industry representatives and other stakeholders to discuss freight issues. The group meets to share information, solve problems and improve the way freight works in Somerset. The partnership is very interested in plans for development at Hinkley Point C. Partnership members are likely to play an important role in meeting the development’s freight needs and they welcome the opportunities it presents. However, the development will also have a significant impact on how they carry out their day to day business in the area. Therefore, the group is keen to understand the proposed freight strategy and offer its local and industry knowledge to help make sure the strategy is successful. The partnership has received a presentation summarising the freight strategy but is concerned about its ability to engage effectively with it. The volume and constant evolution of the proposals make them hard for partnership members to understand properly, on top of their core business. Perhaps more fundamentally, there is a real concern that EDF (and their consultants) are unwilling to capitalise on the partnership’s input by engaging in a real two way exchange. Partnership members are concerned, therefore, that attendance at one of its meetings has been given as an example of how the freight industry have been engaged in the development’s planning. The group would be glad to input constructively into plans, offering a helpful check on their practicality on the ground. However, to do this, they need a convenient way to keep up to date with proposals and the opportunity for genuine dialogue, with the potential for real results. I would welcome the opportunity to work with you to find a way for the partnership’s members to engage effectively and help minimise the impact of any development at Hinkley Point C on Somerset’s people and businesses. Yours Sincerely Ryan Bunce Chairman of Somerset’s Freight Quality Partnership* * My role as Chairman of the partnership is undertaken as part of my employment by Somerset County Council in the capacity of Senior Transport Planner. This representation is a summary of discussions at the partnership’s meetings. It is, therefore, separate from any other representations made by Somerset County Council, although the group has agreed with concerns previously raised in relation to the freight strategy by the authority."

Susan Warman
"I live in Chilton Trinity and am concerned about the increase in traffic which will inevitably be generated by the development. This will impact on my daily life in many ways."

Corrna Symons
"Cannington straight is a notorious hotspot for accidents, there have been numerous deaths and serious accidents in recent years...often closing the access to our village for hours, with all the extra traffc constructon will bring there are gong to be massive implications if an accdent occurs with only one route in and out of the edf sight. Emergency vehicles cannot get through quickly enough due to the sheer amount of traffc using A39 already. I live in a village. Villages are supposed to be quiet safe places to live ...Cannngton is busy enough as it is, it will no longer be a village if it is allowed to be overrun by constructon traffc of the volume predicted. It will become unsafe and dangerous for all the who live here, especally the very young and elderly. What would happen if there was an accident at the power staton on a busy Saturday with all the caravaners and extra traffic that tourism brings here....how many deaths need to occur before EDF builds a by-pass?"

Roger Anniss
"It is not Cannington that requires a by-pass to accommodate EDF traffic; Bridgwater and its nearby villages need a new road built from somewhere near Junction 23 of the M5 motorway directly towards Hinkley Point. This could then lead to a loop road joining the A39. EDF keep using the mantra of the "legacy" they wish to leave for the area; this is the ideal opportunity to a)boost local employment, b)completely free up the road infrastucture around Bridgwater and c) address the one over-riding local objection to EDF's plans. I urge the IPC to visit Bridgwater and Cannington on a normal working day at normal working hours to see for situation at firsthand for themselves."

Kilve Parish Council
"Kilve Parish Council are interested in the transportation issues: Improvements in A39, proposed by-pass, transportation of workers, materials and extra volume of traffic."

Amanda Hubbard
"I am in favour of the redevelopment of Hinkley Point C New Power Station, but only if EDF contributes to a Bridgwater bypass to relieve the already bad traffic congestion in the Town. EDF should not be permitted to contribute even further to this."

Pamela Leaver
"I accept, reluctantly, that at the present time Nuclear Power is the only viable solution to looming energy problems. However, it does not follow that those residents in the "path" of tHinkley C should experience intolerable traffic chaos for years to come when a road from junction 23 of the M5, or a northern bypass around Bridgwater, would solve the problem for EDF, locals, and tourists. Don't take the "quick-fix" route, plan ahead and consider people and the environment."

D T Donovan
"I disagree with the proposed construction of Hinkley Point C. A 9-year construction project (one of the largest ... in the UK, p. 12), with at maximum 5,600 workers of whom only a minority can be found locally, involving a very large number of HGV journeys over rural roads, is unsuitable (one might say impractical) in the area affected by the proposal. The minor improvements to roads and other facilities offered by the applicants do nothing to meet the environmental objections. Even the applicants admit that it has not been possible to fully meet the concerns of local communities (p. 3). The traffic generated by the transport of materials will be greatly increased by commuting by workers, the majority of whom will have to come from outside the immediate site of construction (p. 14). No estimates of traffic densities are offered by the applicants (pp. 18-23) but they will inevitably be very much greater than at present. I am not resident in west Somerset but I know the county well from long-term research in geology and other aspects. References are to the Application Summary Document, published by EDF, 2011."

Linda Herbert
"My concern is the congestion and damage to the infrastructure of the town of Bridgwater which will result of this project going ahead. I live on the main A39 on the west side of the town and the traffic situation is already at an optimum level."

Alison Williams
"I wish to disagree with the development of the site at Hinkley Point without there being a dedicated road from the M5 motorway to Hinkley point as I feel that inadequate assessment has been made of the traffic impact on Cannington where I am resident and surrounding areas eg Bridgwater. Any increase in use of the roads through Cannington by large vehicles will potentially result in increased vulnerability to children cycling or walking on the narrow pavements or trying to cross roads. This increased vulnerability also applies to the elderly and also to those who are disabled. Congestion is also an issue which will be dramatically affected resulting in delays to emergency vehicles whether called to villagers or to the development site at Hinkley Point. Congestion will also be an issue at peak rush hour or if an accident causes a blockage to the road network as it currently stands. All the large vehicles will become gridlocked and unable to move. This already happens if there is an accident and results in hours of delays and sometimes inaccessibility of areas. Traffic has to use unsuitable roads when blockages occur and this has risk in itself of further accident and danger to residents in neighbouring villages. It is also likely to become a more frequent occurance and this will have an impact on the local economy both tourist and economic. Increased pollution will arise from the increased use of the road and this will have a negative impact on health of all age groups in the community. Traffic noise will also increase and probably start earlier and earlier as people allow longer journey times to be able to avoid delays in exiting from minor onto major roads or simply the traffic slow down at peak hours. Children may miss out on schooling when the school buses are delayed in reaching school in the mornings. These problems will last for the whole of any build time and over-run and have been recognised by the local council. The issues raised would be irrelevant if a direct transport access were constructed to the site and such an access would ensure a primary and secondary access for emergency services to Hinkley Point in the event of a prolem on site."

Maureen Carter
"I live on the main A39 on the west side of the town and the traffic situation is already at an optimum level. My concern is the congestion and damage to the infrastructure of the town of Bridgwater which will result if this project goes ahead."

Robert Booth
"I am broadly supportive of the application, but have significant concerns about the impacts of increased traffic through routes already congested and prone to accidents. The arguments pertaining to this have been widely articulated and are publicly available, so I will not repeat them here, but may expand upon them from a personal perspective later in a written submission."

Doreen Bunch
"EDF have failed to hold consultations in accordence with the regulations. EDF have given illustrations of land that might be acquired to change various junctions/roads in order to ease the traffic through Bridgwater but refused to give any details of the proposed changes to the road infrastructure. At a scrutiny committee meeting attended by members of Somerset County Council, Sedgemoor District Council, representaives of local Parish Councils and members of the public Mr. David Eccles stated that EDF did not intend to release details of the proposed changes until the application for Hinkley "C" had been accepted by the IPC. Therefore there was no consultation on these proposals prior to the application being submitted"

Phil Pearson
"Strongly disagree with on-site campus. Also very concerned about works traffic on unsuitably small local roads."

Gabriel Carrillo
"I believe nuclear generation is key part of a mixed balance needed for future generations and hence it is paramount that Hinkley C as a power plant becomes a reality. Additionally, I have been living in the area for more than 7 years and I know about the positive impact that such industry has on local business and commerce. This project will create a huge amount of new jobs at all levels of the local communities."

RJ Lane
"I live in Cannington and I am convinced that whithout a Bridgwater bypass the Power Station, which I support will be years over the delivery date and lives will be put at risk. A Station still has many years of decommissioning B Station will start in a few years time this will involve many hundreds of people add this to the tens of thousands working on the new C Station what is the problem BUILD THE BYPASS AROUND BRIDGWATER CANNINGTON & COMBWICH Todays decision will live with Somerset for at least 100 years please get it right and insist on the Bypass."

Ingrid Hesling Vickery
"I have lived in this area all my life and have seen many changes. Some things are so precious to quality of life for everyone and the impact of this development will be monumental in many ways. It will change this beautiful, unique area forever. Our land is under threat for future generations to enjoy and thrive in. Nuclear is an 'easy' short term answer opening up long term problems, which are still not being addressed. If we can consider producing more nuclear waste the safety of the environment and people of the future are not taken seriously at all. There are other options."

Caroline Ness
"I strongly disapprove of this project. The infrastructure cannot cope with traffic as it stands going through to Minehead and Exmoor. This would cripple the town of Bridgwater and its environs. Not to mention the fact that I am violently anti-nuclear power until such time as we can find an appropriate way to get rid of its noxious and dangerous waste safely and environmentally."

Carol Senior
"I disapprove of this project. The infrastructure cannot cope with traffic as it stands going through to Minehead and Exmoor. This would cripple the town of Bridgwater and its environs. t I am also anti-nuclear power until such time as we can find an appropriate way to get rid of its noxious and dangerous waste safely and environmentally."

Frank Thomas
"Cannington village has a primary school situated on the only through thoroughfare and the children have to walk to school as parental parking is at a premium. The main road is narrow, hence a by-pass was constructed some years ago to carry holiday traffic around the village. Now EDF proposes to route their construction and worker traffic along this by-pass and into the village centre from the west. Not only can the village road system not take this traffic, but the A39 from Bridgwater itself will become totally congested. This rural route is not suitable for the demands EDF and its contactors intend to subject it to."

Hilary Burland on behalf of Kathleen Ball
"I am an elderly resident of Cannington and have the following concerns: Increased traffic movements within the village. I am 96 years of age and at present enjoy walking round the comparatively quiet streets of Cannington. I am afraid that tremendous amounts of heavy traffic will make it dangerous for me to continue to do this. The propsed route will blight the western side of the village as prevailing winds will carry increased noise and dust across the area. Consideration should be given to providing a route which directs the inevitable increase in traffic away from the centre of the village."

Leanna Swindells
"My concerns are with the amount of traffic coming on the A38/A39 through Bridgwater. The amount now is of some concern but to add more and bring it through Cannington where if one car parks outside a house it causes a backlog of vehicles. The roads were not built to take such heavy traffic. I find walking along the pavements now is un-nerving but to bring even more large vehicles through would be a nightmare for predestrians. I am backing the Cannington Parish Council with their concerns to keep it out the village of Cannington."

Alan Robinson
"My concerns are with the amount of traffic coming on the A38/A39 through Bridgwater. The amount now is of some concern but to add more and bring it through Cannington where if one car parks outside a house it causes a backlog of vehicles. The roads were not built to take such heavy traffic. I find walking along the pavements now is un-nerving but to bring even more large vehicles through would be a nightmare for predestrians. I am backing the Cannington Parish Council with their concerns to keep it out the village of Cannington."

Mrs J Ayres
"The application completely ignores the impact of vastly increased traffic on this area of Somerset. Thesituation in and around Bridgwater at the present time is already dire. It is impossible to be certain to get through the town on a good day to attend hospital and other appointments without allowing almost an hour. I have had to move my early morning professional timetable in order to be sure of arriving on time. On a bad day when there are accidents, anything can happen. Six hours was the queing time on the A39 one day last year. The ageing population with increased possibilities of medical emergencies is being totally ignored, as are those of us still working . The attitude of EDF is UNACCEPTABLE in a democracy. The whole planning application has been designed to make it difficult to object in a meaningful way. Living with this extra traffic is alredy a nightmare! No tourist will want to return once they have experienced it. Please do not hold crucial public meetings in school holiday times, when many people are away. The timing of some meetings has been extrordinary."

Colin Chapman
"EDF have not considered the impact on the local and wider community with regards to their additional traffic and the chaos it will cause. I frequently visit my Mother and Grand Parents who live in Cannington and friends in the local area of Bridgwater and even now the traffic in and around Bridgwater and onto Cannington is congested. I frequently come across very large vehicles along single carriageways; these are not really suitable for such vehicles. If an accident happens it causes gridlock and a lengthy addition to my journey to bypass it, (if and when I can). If EDF goes ahead with their proposals it will cause greater volumes of traffic and increase the probability of accidents especially with the large vehicles and the tight bends on the way to and through Cannington. Accidents in the past have closed the roads and caused gridlock for up to 6 hours. On the subject of accidents, take that big M5 crash back in November, two junctions were closed off completely and all the traffic had to take the A38 to bypass the closure. That was also the night of the river wall collapsed in Bridgwater, this overstretched emergency services, hopefully this is a one off, but EDF also needs to understand that these things DO happen and WILL happen. I also don’t feel EDF have considered the impact this may have on the emergency services, they are overstretched as it is. If an accident closes the road to Cannington and someone there needs an ambulance, or even an incident at the plant itself it may be delayed to the detriment of their health. This clearly is unacceptable and should be addressed before decisions are made. EDF can build what ever they like I’m not fussed I would just like them to THINK FIRST. The safest and the most logical answer to all of the problems is a bypass from Hinkley point straight through to the M5 at Dunball."

Terry Clay
"I work for a community-based employment support organisation in Somerset. I don’t have a bias for or against Nuclear Power only an interest in the manner of the project implementation because of its potential impact on local employment . Your Somerset states that 'thousands of local jobs could be on the cards if the project goes ahead." My question is, "Is there a credible and funded strategy to ensure that as many of these jobs as possible are secured by local people?" Given the lead time to commissioning there must be an ample opportunity to ensure that training and education are geared to providing suitably skilled and qualified local people to fill future vacancies. All that is needed to ensure motivation for people to gain the skills and qualifications is to ensure that any local suitably qualified person is guaranteed an interview. Is that not a simple and affordable strategy to optimise local recruitment and project benefit?"

Mrs A Peers
"Please find enclosed short summary of concerns:- 1. Continual very heavy traffic daily on A39..all traffic from Bridgwater to Cannington has to travel along ONE road before it can get to any proposed bypass around the village...how are other working people supposed to travel with ease daily to their employments?Also Bridgwater is gridlocked now between two motorway junctions when any accidents occur. 2. Safety issues...Japan for example. 3. Desecration of wildlife/beautiful Somerset scenery. 4. Disposal of nuclear waste - contamination for yearsahead"

Anne Fletcher
"We are primarily concerned with the adverse amount of traffic and noise which this project will have on where we live. It is already difficult to exit Shurton and turn right for Bridgwater to allow us to get to work because of the huge volume of traffic going to Hinkley Point. Even as yearly as 7am it is becoming increasingly difficult . We would suggest traffic light are placed at this junction. It will be impossible otherwise to get to work. Also we are concerned at the amount of traffic that will be coming through Shurton. Our property adjoins the bridge over Shurton Brook and it is already very noisey in the morning as the continuousstream of traffic comes over and people use Shurton as a short cut to get to Hinkley Point. This route should only be used by local traffic. EDF should create alternative routes and direct traffic away from Shurton. We will be sandwiched in between the noise and upheaval of the site itself and traffic getting to it."

Mr K J Farr
"I strongly feel that a bypass is needed around Bridgwater and Cannington BEFORE building of Hinkley C starts . The number of large vehicles using the existing roads will be far to many and dangerous . I am a HGV driver myself and can see what the traffic will be like . I also think that Cannington village should have a 7.5 tonne weight limit ."

Mrs M Farr
"I am concerned about the increase in traffic especially lorries for the building of Hinkley Point C . I believe that a bypass for Cannington and Bridgwater should be in place before building starts ."

Kalina-Mae Farr
"I live in the area and think it is not suitable having lorries going through the area."

Miss Terri-Sue Farr
"I think that a bypass should be built around Cannington and Bridgwater before they start Hinkley point C as I don't want lots of big noisy lorries coming through the village ."

Margaret Ann Layton
"I wish to comment on the disproportionate proposed development for Combwich as compared to overall size of the village. It is not appropriate here. The huge number of HGV's required to complete the freight lay down area is not acceptable. The freight lay down area is not acceptable as it too close to residential dwellings and will harm our residential ammenity by causing noise pollution, lightpollution and air pollution. The freight lay down is on a Public footpath known as the Parrett Trail which is used by residents and tourists we do not want to loose this footpath."

Stephen John Layton
"The proposals for Combwich are bigger than the the village.It will swamp us. It is not acceptable, The freight lay down and storage facility will cause air, light and noise pollution. It should be moved away from residential properties and away from the flood plain. No further building should be acceptable on flood plains The proposal will cause the loss of our rural residential ammenity as it will become industrial. We choose to live in the countryside."

Mrs Barbara Sanders
"I object to the anticipated increase in heavy goods vehicles driving through the small roads in our village. This will affect the state of the road surfaces, noise, parking and general getting in and out of the village. A bypass road was built a few years ago to take away the volume of traffic going to Minehead through Cannington. This was one of the reasons that drew me to moving into Cannington because it is easy to drive in and out of the village, to go about my business via the main road. However, I am now concerned that traffic to Hinkley Point C during construction and ongoing operations will have a severe impact on our small community, because the roads just aren't wide enough to cope with large quantities of heavy vehicles."

Rachel Hills
"Infrastructure by the very term is there to enable a project to be completed but at no point should such infrastucture be constructed to the detriment of the local community. I believe that the current plan would severly effect the lives of Cannington residents; quantities of large vehicles passing through will bring:- air and noise pollution, possible structural damage to the old buildings, be detrimental to tourist businesses and congestion which will hamper local journeying and emergency vehcile movements. An alternative means of delivery for building materials must be secured to ensure the well being of the population of Cannington."

Timothy Herold
"In commom with the majority of the villagers of Cannington, I write to express my view that no part of the roads in Cannington should be utilised for carrying heavy loads of materials/aggregates either now or in the future.There is potential danger to the public particularly the elderly and students in term time.The current village road network is totally unsuited for this type of traffic.I favour the norhern route bypassing both Bridgwater and Cannington.To me it is sheer madness to increase still further already congested roads particularly the A38 and A39.I appreciate the need for both power generation and employment opportunities,but this should not be at the expense of the local residents quality of life.I hope that my comments may be considered in a favourable light."

Martin Tucker
"I fill that roads A39 around Bridgwater and Cannnington will not be fit for tha projected traffic increase for this area and the only coarse of action would be a route from M5 J23 to Hinkley point or Northern bypass from M5 around Bridgwater and pass the west of Cannington.With the increase in traffic on the route EDF wants, traffic every 40seconds increaseing chaos fume on small road in and around Cannington for all people who lives here.Normal crash on this road can close the route for up 4 hours or more, putting ALL at risk with the Emergency vehicles been held up. No work should be allow until a Northern route is constructed."

Mr Roger John Bennett
"Cannington Village:- 1) Traffic calming measures needed through the Village - 20 mph speed limit. 2) Change of road priority at the junction at the War Memorial to ensure traffic coming from the east of the village has to give way. 3) Brook street to be a pedestrian area to allow front access by children to the village school."

Reginald Cottey
"Cannington is a small village which had a by-pass built to remove traffic from the centre which contains sheltered housing, a college campus and some small shops. The current work being carried out dictates that large construction vehicles drive through the main street, past the college on roads that are clearly not designed to take this type of traffic on a regular basis. Therefore I support the DAS proposal to build a vehicle by-pass west of Cannington to take construction and maintenance traffic, and I believe this should be completed before any substantive work starts. The proposal to site the Park and Ride on the edge of Cannington defeats the object of building the by-pass as cars would travel through the village to the P&R facility. It would be better sited off the new bypass towards Combwich and away from both villages."

J P Putnam
"I believe that the whole plan for the road system and associated park and ride is flawed and should be revised to alleviate the massive congestion that will result if the current proposals by EDF go ahead."

David Wilshire
"The need to provide a secure future supply of electricity"

John Willis
"Concern for the amount of extra traffic the Hinckley C project is going to impact on the village of Cannington. The present road infrastructure is already used to capacity by agricultra lvehicles, Quarry lorries, Horse box transport to an equestrian centre, along with the villages normal daily traffic to businesses and population. The A39 approaches to the village both west and east are already an accident prone area, which results in long delays as the lanes around the village are inadequate to take relief trafiic."

Tessa Howard
"Please listen to the many local residents who want to have their voices heard. We are after all a democratic country and the building of Hinkley C will affect us in the Bridgwter area mightily. I greatly fear the inevitable problems that will follow if full planning permission is given to the building of a new nuclear power station. My main reason is that the disposal of waste has never been solved and it is too big a problem to risk. It seems, also, that the costs are escalating and the two similar stations now in construction are over-budget and behind in timing. The government might very find itself subsidising the project at some point. It is bad enough that it may be built at all but not a penny, even in a covert way, of tax-payers' money should be used; EDF must bear the full cost, not just of the buidling but of waste disposal for all times. I wonder if it would go ahead if this condition was truly imposed? Unlikely. In addition, in the shorter term, the area will not be able to cope with the traffic; Bridgwater and its approaches already become gridlocked at busy times of day so further traffic will bring many roads to a standstill. Please listen."

Molly Willis
"Any increase in the volume of traffic caused by the building and servicing of Hinkley Point C will be greatly detrimental to the life and safety of the village. The increase in the number of heavy vehicles on top of the already large number of Agricultral vehicles, Horse boxes, daily run of quarry lorries, plus the business traffic and local inhabitants will strech the cappacity of the infrastructure to breaking point. The need for an alternative service road that bypasses the village is absolutely essential."

Heidi Morse
"I am neither for or against the new Nuclear Power Station. My main concerns are briefly the amount of construction traffic coming through the town of Bridgwater and the urgent need for a new bridge over the River Parrett to alieviate this. The financial status of EDF and any bailout by the French Governent in the future should the need arise - leaving the project in limbo. The legacy of all the waste from the site for hundreds of years to come and finally the overhead power lines proposed to take electricity to the Bristol area - which are ugly, huge and unnecessary - when viable alternatives are available. As a local lady born in Somerset I would agree that the project is exciting economically for this depressed area but would really like to see more British workers employed there, rather than Eastern European labour or French Engineers!"

Alan Bridger
"New power generation capacity is urgently needed. Nuclear generation is statistically one of the safest method to do so and the only low carbon way to produce adequate quantities of electricity. Hinkley Point has an excellent record of safe nuclear generation and has plenty of room for expansion. I strongly support the construction of Hinkley Point C."

Lord King of Bridgwater
"As Member of Parliament for Bridgwater from 1970 to 2001, I was very familiar with the whole range of issues involved with nuclear power stations . Hinckley A was already operational, and Hinkley B was constructed early in my time. It is important that the lessons learnt then are not forgotten, not least in the impact on local communities . I am also very conscious that the new proposals are coming forward at a time of much greater uncertainty both about the acceptability of nuclear power and the economic situation, than was the case before, and the importance of reinstatement of the land ,were the project not to be carried through, is of far greater relevance this time."

Reverend Charles Chadwick
"I am concerned that unless a brand new road is built to the north of Bridgwater the already difficult traffic situation will become impossible, with severe holdups at the juntion of the Norhtern districtutor Road aka Homburg Way and Quantock road roundabout to give just one instant, given the size of the workforce and the amount of material needed for Hinkley Point C. With over 7,500 new homes allocated to Brdigwater alone between 2006 and 2027 our town cannot take any futher traffic. So it is essential that EDF provide funds for a new road."

Terence Howard
"At present; before major construction work begins on this project, traffic in and around Bridgwater is a problem particularly during rush hours. When there is an incident on the M5 such problems are considerably increased. That is why the development committee of Sedgemoor District Council recently rejected a connected proposal for a development by the motorway junction at Huntworth, south of the town. Such congestion problems have obvious implications for the emergency services. Even if the IPC is minded to allow this project to go ahead provision must be made to minimise its impact locally. If people here are to live with the inherent dangers of a nuclear facility in order that electricity can be provided for the wider population we should not also be expected to put up with major disruption. Similarly the interest of the company building the facility is to keep costs as low as possible in the interest of profits for shareholders and if that means massive inconvenience to local people they will only do as little to alleviate that as they have to. That presumably is why EDF has been extremely reluctant to consider the construction of a bridge across the River Parret North of Bridgwater to bypass the town. I think we should be very wary of EDF promises and timetables. Similar facitities that they have under construction in Finland and France are currently about 5 years behind schedule and billions over budget so the idea that this is how we maintain our electricity supply in the short term and cheaply is surely questionable. That is without even taking into account the eventual decommissioning costs and long term waste storage, which, whatever the current administration promises, are certain to fall on the taxpayer unless the operator is required, over the working life of the power station, to pay into a bond specifically for that purpose and sufficiently large to cover those costs. Such costs, if not provided for and although not immediate, constitute a huge subsidy from the taxpayer that could call into question the viability of this type of power production against others. The fact that senior EDF executives were recently imprisoned and fined for activities against opponents in France implies that the company does not like transparency in dealings with the people who in the final analysis fund it. Can we trust such an organisation to have our interests at heart? I think not."

Alan Michael Slade
"I live in and own a house in High Street Cannington. This street has now been designated as 'the route' for construction traffic through my village. The traffic will in fact pass within a few feet on my front door. I believe the quality of life for my village will be affected for years possibly forever and this impact could have been avoided. I am lead to believe that an enquiry report in the late 1980s ascertained that at that time the local infrastructure was not fit for purpose in supporting the construction traffic for Hinkley C power station. Therefore the infrastructure improvement through the construction of new routes should have been the first phase of the development of this nuclear facility. Instead a number of years contruction time has been lost due th EDF's relunctance to invest in the local infrastructure. Surely the £20 million Community Fund to be set up by EDF should be the first contribution to the cost of improving the infrastructure. Also the start date of the actual power station construction should be put back until sufficient improvements have been made to the local infrastructure."

Jacqueline Wilson
"Although I am not against the Power station itself I am against the fact that EDF is planning to build aroad through the area round the village instead of one from the motorway. At the moment plans are that many lorries a day will pass through the village, It is already very busy with traffic from Hinkley Point nearly nose to tail at shift change times. This will make it even worse and I would request that plans for the power station be refused until they agree to a new road."

J Chanay
"1. The Applicant’s Draft DCO lacks adequate transparency on planning categories (para.2.2.3, the Planning Statement Doc. Ref. 8.12). Whether obfuscation or sloppiness, such approach could not reasonably be held acceptable or sufficient for planning purposes. Nor could it be said to exemplify good practice in preparation of DCO applications for major infrastructure projects. a. The IPC are requested to consider, prior to the Preliminary Meeting during the Pre-Examination phase, requiring the Applicant to disaggregate, accurately identify and properly justify the planning status of, as well as the normal and the proposed consents route for, each on-site development element (including the elements treated as constituting the core NSIP). b. Enforcing clarity and consistency is of paramount importance for the lay public, given the complexities of interaction between the normal consenting regimes and the consenting regime under the Planning Act 2008. 2. The Applicant’s apparent casualness notwithstanding, regarding the IPC Commissioner’s summary under s55(3)(c), in Checklist Question 3.1 of the Section 55 Acceptance of Application Checklist (dated 24.11.2011), at what point does the IPC expect to independently complete disaggregation as per 1 (a) above? 3. Leaving spent nuclear fuel on-site in interim stores (ISFS), until 2130 if not longer, amounts to unilateral imposition of an unacceptable legacy burden on future generations, as well as transfer of risk and purposefully created long term negative externalities. a. What guarantee has the Applicant provided of remaining a going concern throughout? Were anything to go seriously wrong with the on-site ISFS, future generations will not be able to hold the staff and owners of a defunct company accountable for their past actions. b. In any case, is the Applicant guaranteeing that mainland Britain could never become entangled in major territorial war over the course of the next 110 to 160 years? c. What if the ISFS infrastructures come under large scale technically co-ordinated simultaneous multiple terrorist attacks, or were hit by an earthquake of unforeseeable greater magnitude than historically experienced in Britain, resulting in uncontrollable multiple leakage of pool waters, with compromised containment structures and compromised critical access routes, and comprehensive multi-mode failure of backup cooling systems, in combination with loss of site power? 4. The documentation appears to lack explicit transparency on: a. exactly who takes possession of the HPC spent nuclear fuel inventories accumulated in the ISFS and at what point; b. complete reliance on the UK Government to assume full responsibility for permanent disposal of the nuclear waste inventories amassed at HPC; and, c. what if a future government changed its mind? There could be up to 12 future governments between 2018 and 2078. What if problems occur with the repository before the HPC inventories could be removed off-site? Who would then be responsible for the HPC nuclear waste, which needs to be kept isolated from the biosphere for up to 240,000 years? Reliance on nationalisation of HPC higher activity nuclear waste is neither environmentally sustainable, ethically or rationally a credible waste management solution, nor sound sustainable planning practice. The creation of spent nuclear fuel is an irreversible act. There is no certainty of the Applicant’s short, medium or long term viability, or of the immutability of nationalisation."

Michael Anthony Speake
"As a frequent visitor to Cannington, and also a regular traveller to Minehead, I have been aware for some time of the traffic problems which can arise on the A39 in and around Bridgwater and Cannington. It seems to me that the building of a new power station without suitable infrastructure being in place to carry the large numbers of heavy vehicle entailed will lead to chaos. There are frequent accidents on the A39, there may well be accidents during the construction period, and with no extra capaclty, the roads will be choked with vehicles and ambulances etc. will not be able to get through. I cannot inderstand why EDF are not being required to put in place a dedicated access road from the M5 - a Northern Bypass for Bridgwater."

Cannington County Council Division
"Explanatory Note These comments are not intended to represent the Somerset County Council's views. The County Council will be making a separate representation. They are from me as Divisional Member of the County Council representing the majority view of residents within the Cannington Division. 1. No objection to the principle of a new nuclear station at Hinkley Point. 2. Strong objections to the plans submitted by EDF to the IPC relating to transport issues. 3. Existing road structure even with major junction improvements is totally inadequate for traffic loads anticipated. 4. The proposed Cannington by-pass will alleviate problems within the village but the whole area from motorway junctions 23 and 24 along the A38 and A39 routes must be considered as a whole. 5. Schemes for new traffic routes MUST be considered as a matter of urgency and priority. A further written representation will be made at the appropriate time."

Mr A Pauling-Canvin
"I believe the road network through Bridgwater from junction 23 and 24 and from Bridgwater to Cannington is not capable of carrying the extra traffic that will be required. It is just capable of carrying current volumes. Any road traffic collision or incident will compound the problem and the area will be in gridlock. A diversion or bypass must be considered."

R W Fowler
"I have no objections to the building of Hinkley Point C.What I do object to is the fact you will not consider a bypass that takes all of the extra traffic around Bridgwater and Cannington.As a residant of Cannington I have witnessed several near miss accidents in the center of the village already, with the extra lorries already passing through Rodway and turning right at the war memorial to exit the village via the western roundabout."

David Hughes
"we are very concerned of the amount of traffic that is being generated already ,some traffic that travels to hinkley c still use the village as a short cut that includes lorrys and at a speed higher than permitted.hate to think what happens when project for building is at full compacity"

Marguerite Webster
"I am very concerned about how the works will increase the traffic in Bridgewater and Cannington. For the reason that it will delay travelling time but also be dangerous with accidents likley to increase. I belive the increase in traffic will also ruin the rural fell to the area. It will delay any emergency vehicles trying to get through to access people. I do not belive that any work should be allowed to commence until an alternative route is constructed to keep traffic away from bridgwater and Cannington."

Richard Shelton
"Regarding the Hinkley C project, I am all for this, as i believe we need to take urgent action to safeguard the availability of domestically available energy. Nuclear has proved itself over the decades, and I believe most people in our area broadly welcome the project. However, where I and by far the majority of residents in the area have a MAJOR issue, is the proposed roads infrastructure. The common sense approach to this, that would be of benefit to contractors, EDF and residents, would be a by pass from Junction 23 of the M5 across country, crossing the Parrett river and direct to just outside the EDF site. The current proposals for road improvement are wholly unacceptable."

Colin Flowers
"A major concern is the tremendous amount of heavy traffic through the village of Cannington and on the A38/A39 through Bridgwater."

Deborah Hills on behalf of Thomas Hills
"This representation is written on behalf of my son Thomas Hills. He feels that the proposals put forward for the transport infrastructure during the construction of Hinckley Point C will have an adverse effect on his present quality of life in Cannington. During the eighteen months required to complete the proposed bypass at Cannington, travel to and from home to school in the village will be difficult and dangerous. Visiting his friends in the village will incur the same problems. At the same time, during construction of the same bypass a there will also be disruption, noise and pollution affecting his home which is very near to the proposed new road. During the whole time required for completion of construction at Hinckley Point C there will be constant noise, and pollution affecting his home life and health. There will be disruption to travel to Bridgwater for use of the amenities and for senior schooling. THIS WOULD LAST THROUGHOUT HIS ENTIRE CHILDHOOD UNTIL ADULTHOOD. He also wories that due to the intentions of using existing A and B roads during construction of the nuclear powerstation there is inadequate provision for the ingress of emergency personel and evacuation of local residents should a major incident occur."

D Ayres
"I wish to make the following points in respect of this application: - 1 Insufficient account has been taken upon the impact of additional traffic flows on the A39 and A38 in the Cannington and Bridgwater areas. 2 Traffic in Bridgwater is already often gridlocked without the increased traffic due to the proposal. 3 Accidents along the A39 are unfortunately very frequent and often result in the complete closure of the road forcing trafffic onto narrow country lanes. 4 In the event of an emergency at the power station there is the possibility that emergency vehicles would be unable to reach the site because of traffic. 5 The proposed alterations to various junctions in and around Bridgwater are completrely inadequate. They will not be sufficient to cope with the additional traffic flows and the works to carry them out will in themselves create major traffic hold ups without solving the problems. 6 The only reasonable and effective solution to the the additional traffic flows and consequent loss of amenity for residents in the area is the construction of a new by pass to the north of Bridgwater linking the A38 with the A39 at the eastern end of the existing Cannington by pass, or perhaps, with the Cannington to Hinkley Point Road north of Cannington with a link to the western end of the Cannington by pass to prevent the use of Cannington village centre as a 'rat run' by through traffic heading towards Minehead, particulaly in the holiday season. 7 The proposed lcation of a park and ride facility between Cannington by pass and the village will create significant loss of amenity and nuisance for residents living nearby. It will be a 24 hour operation meaning noise, lights and air pollution day and night. 8 The proposed access to the park and ride is not adequate. Traffic uses the by pass at high speed and unless the junction is controlled by traffic lights or, even better, a proper roundabout accidents will occur. The proposal is completely unsafe."

Jill Chant
"The proposed development is for nuclear power to generate electricity. I completely disagree with the development of nuclear power no matter what the ephemoral financial incentives to the county might be. Until nuclear waste can be rendered harmless we have a moral obligation to populations as yet unborn not to bequeath them this poisoned chalice. Windscale,Chenobil, Three Mile Island and Fukashima are evidence enough to prove that humans cannot manage this method of power generation safely. Hinkley C Nuclear Power Station should NOT go ahead."

David John Dean
"As a private individual residing in Somerset I would like to register my full support for EDF Energy application to build Hinkley C Power Station. I firmly believe this type of power source is the only way to seriously overcome our long term shortfall in providing energy for this country. Locally the additional business with building and then maintaining the power plant is a very big bonus for the local economy and will be very welcome. David J Dean"

Annie Williams
"We have many concerns but our main ones are:- FREIGHT LAYDOWN AREA - As loads coming in depend on the tides, surely this means that we have traffic coming in at all different times (even night time) , this will cause noise, vibration and lighting issues. Are there any plans to restrict hours. FLOODING - The work to be carried out on the wharf must put the area at risk from flooding. TRAFFIC - No matter how many by-passes are built all traffic must lead to the Rodway, the main road to Hinkley, which passes the junction into Combwich, are there any plans for slowing down traffic, especially at the junction with Combwich. As there are plans for a wharf at the main construction site surely it would be better to use this for all loads as this would solve a lot of problems."

Barry Lukins
"as a resident of cannington for more than 60 yrs and worked at both a&b stations at hinkley point, i have found most people of this community have nothing against the building of hinkley c, what most people are against is the rejection of e.d.f to build a northern bypass, it is the most sensible thing to do, but e.d.fs persuance of building new roads and infrastructures in bridgwater and park and rides and bypasses for cannington, are agrivating people in the local areas, the a39 road between nether stowey and bridgwater is already a nightmare in the rush hours, and if there was to be emergency incident on this road there would be chaos as shown several times in 2011 when the a39 was closed due to accidents for more than 6 hrs, it would be much simpler to build a new road from dunball straight off the m5 and come out north of cannington thus avoiding any bottlenecks , if this were done everybody for miles around would feel much happier about hinkley c"

David Williams
"FREIGHT LAYDOWN AREA - As loads coming in depend on the tides, surely this means that we have loads coming in at all different times, even at night, this will cause a lot of disruption. Are there any plans for set working hours. FLOODING - Will the work on the wharf increase the flooding risk. TRAFFIC - Even with by-passes all traffic must lead to to Rodway, the main road to Hinkley, which comes in contact with the junction into Combwich, are there any plans for slowing down traffic, especially at the junction with Combwich. As there are plans to have a wharf at the main construction site, surely it would be better to use this for delivery of all loads as this would solve a lot of the problems. HOUSE PRICES - We are concerned that house prices could be affected."

J A Searle
"I am concerned about :- the amount of heavy traffic travelling through the village of Cannington before the bypass is built. :- the amount of heavy traffic moving through Bridgwater and subsequently onto the narrow A39 leading to Cannington. :- the bend at the Wembdon turn off where people are killed every year in road traffic accidents. I have not seen this mentioned in any of the literature I have received. :- when an accident occurs on the A39 leading to Cannington all the roads and narrow lanes are gridlocked for miles around . What procedures have been put in place in the event of an accident which will be more likely with increased heavy traffic and non local lorry drivers not knowing the nature of the roads? :-"

Carla Boyd
"As a previous resident in the village of Cannington and still a regular visitor to the village, I am well aware of the traffic conditions prevailing. I believe EDF's traffic proposals to be both inadequate and a total disaster for the area. 1] Traffic on the proposed sole route will be increased by an excess of 50% through EDF's works. This does not include all of the EDF traffic as they have still to submit further applications re the Hinkley project. It has been noted that every time EDF release traffic volumes they are increased. 2} Increased traffic volumes {particularly heavy goods and weights] will automatically increase road works. These two elements can only increase accidents resulting in major delays and inconvenience, including accessibility problems to the ares by all the emergency services. 3] Any nuclear incident at Hinkley would result in massive panic. People trying to flee the area and emergency vehicles trying to get through to Hinkley in opposite directions. This would be along the only single carriageway and country lanes generating an enormous car park! 4] The French nuclear watchdog, ASN is concerned about safety in France and says tens of billions of euros are needed to be invested in this area. 5] The proposed traffic routes are a major safety issue and permission for this development should not be granted unless it includes an additional road from junction 23 of the M5 direct to Hinkley."

Christina Wheadon
"I would like to ask for the following items to be considered along with the application as it deeply concerns me that decisions are made without all of the facts not only being looked at but also the carefull consideration of the impact now and in the future of the area, land, living things including plants, animals and of course us the people and that money is speaking louder than all of the above as everyone has to live with the outcome for many years to come! I share the concerns of the village of Cannington about the noise, smell, dust and how the infrasture of the roads can deal with everything that EDF want to put it through, after all we are a village not a town and with the many cars already using the roads for commuting and the already heavy holiday traffic during the summer months, how will we cope, especially with the number of accidents that already happen throughout the year and this is not including the new volume of traffic EDF wants us to have on top. Time and time again we voice about a road from Dunball to HP C why o why will no one listen to something that will cost so little in the scheme of things, but could be a life saver if there are any issues at HP C and would mean easy access, a direct route for workers, no road surface issues/costs to the councils, tax payers etc. especially for years to come and monies getting tighter. If we do not get listened to now, it will be too late and we will all pay for years to come in lower house prices, bad roads, incidents and most importantly lack of trust for governing bodies and especially as everyone is aware of EDF and how they operate mostly not above board and there not even ENGLISH! i.e. Construction sites training centres with Bridgwater College already in place and being advertised (Talk about rubbing it in peoples noses already) Thank you for reading this and I do hope that we have a chance of believing that we are being LISTENED to and it is just not the case of following procedure to no avail. Regards, Chris Wheadon"

Martin Weston
"My concern is with regard to the disruption that would be caused in Bridgwater and particually Cannington village by the heavy traffic. I feel as many other people do the only option is a new road to Hinkley Point from junction 23 of the M5. I also feel if the current plan is agreed life in the village will be unbearable."

L Wheddon
"The road network is inadequate. The local infrastructure will be stretched to the limits coping with the increase in traffic. Public services will suffer coping with the extra demand from the influx of contractors. Jobs for locals will not be as good as they say as they will employ hinkley b workers and bring in workers from all over the country, as they already do.The flood defences will need to protect Hinkley and the acsess road to it. Last year snow blocked the road for a day. Hinkley needs to be accessable at all times incase of emergancey. If EDF can not plan adequately is the power station it self safe"

Christine Godfrey
"Hinkley Point C should have it's own designated access road direct from Junction 23 at Dunball for the following reasons: To access Hinkley via A39 will cause gridlock within Bridgwater, cause extreme inconvenience to users of the Northern Distributory Road and endanger life and limb in the village of Cannington where an accident is just waiting to happen with the extra heavy traffic travelling through the village at present, and which is due to get worse in the future. The world being what it is with terrorist attacks, fanatical factions waiting to grasp any opportunity to cause mayhem - one "organised accident" on any part of the A39 between Hinkley and Bridgwater would cause chaos, gridlock the A39 both ways together with the surrounding country lanes in the area and would most certainly prevent emergency services getting in or indeed out of a "Nuclear Power Station". Not a very sensible move. On the various occasions there has been an accident in the past in this area, the A39 has been closed for hours! Hinkley having their own designated road would take care of the day to day operational logistics of the building of Hinkley C (which is obviously going to happen) without causing havoc within Bridgwater and Cannington, and would go a long way to eliminate the safety/evacuation side should the unmentionable happen, thus making residents in and around Bridgwater/Cannington area feel confident and safe in their living environment. And once Hinkley C is operational the day to day running of the power station can go ahead without causing too much upheaval and inconvenience to those who just happen to live in the surrounding area. Costly it may be, but commonsense must prevail - list the pros and cons and see which list is longer - Hinkley Point needs its own designated road. Bridgwater will not be able to cope with the traffic - it is often a bottle neck now coping with rush hour traffic and Minehead holiday traffic. And the safety aspect has to be top of the list - money can be found and bridges can be built and people should be allowed to live their lives with minimal disruption. Add up all the "goodwill gestures" EDF have and are giving to the community and you will be able to afford a bridge! Please, please let commonsense shine through especially when there is an alternative solution. Thank you."

James Bradbury
"I am generally supportive of the scheme but have a few concerns: traffic through Bridgewater Rent levels increasing Lack of rented accommodation to local people."

Michael John Morgan
"The transport issue that has not yet been resolved. The Cannington Western By-pass as a minimum is needed before the main build works commence and should be under construction now to prevent major accidents and disruption in the village. The village traffic based improvements are really not necessary if the bypass is constructed. The village centre is full of pedestrian students and locals and is to get busier with the college enlarging.Rodway Hill cannot cope with bad weather conditions this road has closed in recent years due to ice and snow.Bridgwater Bypass directly to Hinkley Point or to A39 at Cannington with route off to Hinkley Point needs to be in place to prevent Bridgwater coming to a standstill on a daily basis.Emergency routes should be available and Cannington, Rodway Hill and blocked Bridgwater may prevent access at a critical time."

Peter Gotto
"I strongly oppose any part of the development of Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station IPC Reference: EN010001 The risks of nuclear contamination and radiation outweigh any benefits by a huge factor. The accidents over the years at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale and now in Japan demonstrate that the costs of recovery and the damage to human lives are so immense that the economic argument does not work in favour of this plan. The much touted benefits are very small in the sum of life in the area and should not be used to propel the argument forward without any reference to the downside."

Sheena Coats
"I disagree with this proposal on the grounds of an inadequate infrastructure plan particularly regarding SAFETY 3 weeks before Christmas a student was knocked down on Rodway Hill (Cl82) and air lifted to hospital. The campus of the Cannington Section of Bridgwater College is split and GROWING with a major development off Rodway Hill in the pipe-line. The volume of traffic is large and GROWING Students bunch and jostle one another on one narrow pavement on the hill and make risky dashes across the road. Student numbers are GROWING with EDF linked courses Traffic is already at a dangerous level for a village which hosts a thriving college with all it's activity. A crossing on the hill is not the answer. Living on Rodway Hill is horrible but the revving of heavy engines and associated fumes due to stoppages on the hill would be intolerable. Yes, give EDF permission for the power station BUT let that permission only take effect on completion of a by-pass. Thank you for reading this."

James Michael Massey
"Believe that the A39 through Bridgwater is unable to support the amount of extra traffic during the construction ,also Cannington is unable to support the volume of traffic passing through the village during the preparation ground works phase."

Susan Hockley
"EDF need to realise the need and get on with building a road directly from the M5 to their site rather than subject Bridgwater and local villages to an unreasonable increase in heavy traffic. The village of Cannington cannot sustain the amount of traffic which would travel through it; it would be particularly dangerous taking into account the school children and college persons walking about in the village at all times. Also, Bridgwater already becomes gridlocked during certain times of the day and the A39 is a dangerous road which often closes for several hours if there is an accident."

Nick Kirby
"In principle I agree with the application and the development. I believe this will be good for the local community and is essential in terms of providing affordable energy in the future."

Richard Worsley
"Generally I am in favour of the development going ahead. However, I have some concerns about the volume of traffic that will be using the road through this pretty village to get to Hinkley Point. I believe that it would cause unnecessary difficulties for all residents here and particularly the elderly. Would it not be possible to build a by pass which would take all Hinkley traffic and leave the present roads free for their regular users."

M Canton
"Nuclear is the only viable long term energy source for the forseeable future. Fossil fuels will run out and contribute to CO2 emissions until then. The plant will bring much needed investment into the county."

P B Aston
"Traffic congestion is already a huge problem. Without a Northern bypass the problem will increase with fatal consequences."

C G Parle
"Due to increased traffic and much pollution, property prices will be severely affected."

B M Clarke
"I believe that this development is a vital contribution to the longevity and continuity of power supply to the UK. Solar power, wind power, tidal power are all praiseworthy but currently without large subsidies, incapable of providing the reliable amounts of energy we use. I would also suggest that Hinckley C will have less overall impact in the area than the several thousand alternative wind turbines scattered over the whole of the SW."

Ron Cooper
"We need power. The best way to generate it is by nuclear means. There is no pollution inherent in nuclear power generation and the only major problem is disposal of the waste. The biggest problem with waste disposal is the NIMBY one, this MUST be dealt with by the Government, and quickly! There are many, many nuclear power plants operating around the world and there have only been 3 dangerous incidents, Chernobyl was due to very poor maintenance and management. Three Mile Island was due to grossly bad management of the early stages of the incident. Fukoshima was due to stupidity in siting the plant on a known fault line. None of these would apply to Hinkley C. Let's get on and build it!"

Bernard Valentine-Slack
"I am a resident of Cannington and object to the intention to route all of the traffic which will be created by the construction of Hinkley Point C using the A39 from Bridgwater and passing through the village of Cannington. This route is single carraige each way and is already subject to accidents and whenever such accidents occur the whole length becomes grid locked because there is no alternative route. Such situations make it impossible to exit the village for hours at a time. I support a route from Junction 23 of the M5 avoiding Cannington altogether."

Andrew McCarthy
"I object to the construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point on many grounds. Firstly there is the disruption it's construction will bring to the local area and the people who live there in terms of noise, traffic and damaged environment. Secondly there is the evidence of contamination of land by radiation already found at around Hinkley Point, which will surely only worsen if there is a new station. It should also be held in mind at this point that the land is designated a Special Protection Area, a Site of Community Importance, the estuary is a wetland of international importance and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The dangers of nuclear radiation, especially to children have long been established. There has been no public debate about the merits of an expanded nuclear programme, a programme which surely exposes us and our children to huge risks both now and in the long term."

Jennifer Caines
"As there is evidence for at least one previous tsunami in the Bristol channel, and in view of it having the second highest tidal range in the world, my deep concern would be the safety aspect of siting another nuclear reactor at Hinckley point, especially given the recent Japanese disaster."

Matt Charlesworth
"I am entirely against the planned construction of another plant at Hinkley for various reasons. Why do we need another nuclear plant? Why has more not been done with 100% green energy sources i.e. tidal, wind, solar etc? EDF like to boast about how safe and clean nuclear energy production is but in reality it is far from! Recent events in Japan proved this when it comes to a disaster whether it be natural or deliberate. What about the waste? I really don't care if EDF 'say' that it will create X amount of jobs and benefits for the area when lets face it, is just sweet talk to butter the local council up (of which the council normally tend to fall for). It won't create hundreds of 'local' jobs, but more like jobs for people outside the area and foreigners I expect! New Hinkley....Not Needed!"

John Lane
"I have lived in Bridgwater for 62 years. I have worked at Hinkley A & B stations for about 30 years,on construction and maintenance. I think the extension to the Cannington bypass road is an expensive luxury we can easily do without. If the volume of traffic in Cannington is the main concern, I would point out that the impact of extra traffic on the roads in and around Bridgwater will be much more severe, both in the building and running stages of Hinkley C, bearing in mind that these roads are already extremely busy."

Magna West Somerset Housing Association
"We are the main provider of affordable housing in West Somerset and we share West Somerset Council's concern regarding the potential effect of the Hinkley Point C construction on the local housing market. If rents and house prices are driven upwards then this could make housing less affordable than it already is in an area where incomes tend to be lower than other areas. On the other hand the proposed development is an opportunity to provide a housing legacy by, for example, converting the planned workers' accommodation into good quality affordable housing on a permanant basis."

Gerald A Mbleton
"I disagree with the purpose of the project which is the basis of this application on the grounds that its site - particularly in view of HM governments prognostications about rising sea levels - will render it even more toxic than the Fukushima plant at some future date. The cost of disposing of the residues will be prohibitive. The country of origin of the parent company is even now having to re-think its nuclear strategy, chiefly on safety grounds and growing militancy among workers affiliated to the TUC makes it ever more llikely that workers in a position to initiate disaster will have only the sketchiest knowledge of the processes they control."

Selworthy and Minehead Without Parish Council
"The Parish Council believe they will have to rely on the expertise and professionalism of the Environment Agency to ensure the safety of the public on the complex and technical issues involved. However the Parish Council is particularly concerned with the following issues: 1. What increase will there be in the levels or radioactive waste? 2. How frequent will the discharges be? 3. What monitoring procedure will be put in place? 4. Can you say what the waste will be made up of? 5. On the roads infrastructure, do EDF or the police consider the road systems around Hinkley site area are 'fit for purpose?' Tourism is of major importance to Minehead, West Somerset and parts of Exmoor along from the A39. The Parish Council is very concerned that this proposal will stop tourists coming to the area on roads already congested and barely usable. What provisions are being made to corect this?"

Debbie Welch
"I’m contacting you as I am very worried and concerned about the proposed intention of building Hinkley Point C. I feel a huge need to express myself as a mother and grandmother. My main concern is the radioactive waste that is produced and how we are to manage it in a safe and controlled way. I have been researching this area of nuclear power and I am alarmed at our continued commitment to this method of meeting our energy needs. Long term management of waste - Quoted from Radioactive waste From Wikipedia. ‘The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years, according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses. Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically. Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning and cost evaluations are concerned. Long term behaviour of radioactive wastes remains a subject for on-going research projects.’ This clearly states that we do not have the information that we need to consider nuclear power as a feasible and sustainable solution. The current proposals of dealing with the radioactive waste by burying it deep in underground sites is not sufficient in the long term as it is impossible to predict whether these forms of storage will be able to stop any radioactive leakage from escaping. Decommissioning nuclear facilities also creates large amounts of radioactive wastes. Many of the world's nuclear sites will require monitoring and protection for centuries after they are closed down. So to be building even more reactors now is the worst possible response to climate change, and there is growing evidence it will actually worsen the problem compared with spending the same money and time on alternative solutions. The potential problems that we could be creating for the future of our children and with our little knowledge now of the long term effects this could have upon them, how will they stand a chance of protecting themselves? The Sustainable Development Commission, (the government’s independent adviser on sustainable development) estimates that a nuclear power programme will ‘only’ deliver a cut in carbon dioxide emissions of 2.4% by 2020. Uranium (nuclear fuel) extraction and processing is one of the most dangerous and carbon-intensive forms of mining. Nuclear waste from new reactors will be even more toxic than existing radioactive by-products In these precarious financial times, this expensive and hazardous form of energy leaves me in overwhelming distress. I feel turning to nuclear energy as an option is looking for a quick fix solution that has potentially long lasting detrimental consequences. I am not convinced that we have enough scientific knowledge from a wide selection of research data, (governmental and independent). Also, are the public in support of having disposal site facilities in this country? I don’t feel there is enough evidence to justify having ‘high confidence ’in this form of energy. Response from Chris Hulme 23.10.10 CoRWM combined consideration of the scientific evidence with a process of engaging stakeholders and members of the public. It took its findings and combined them into a set of interdependent recommendations built around the view that within the present state of knowledge geological disposal is the best available approach. Given international experience and the UK’s own research, the Government is confident that a geological disposal facility could be built which would meet regulatory approval. The British Geological Survey reported in 2006 that “over 30% of the UK has suitable geology for siting a deep geological disposal facility” and CORWM found that “there is high confidence in the scientific community that there are areas of the UK where the geology and hydrogeology at 200 metres or more below ground will be stable for a million years and more into the future” Kind Regards Debbie Welch"

Carly Birkett
"The traffic through Bridgwater and Cannington will be intolerable if a northern bypass is not built from junction 23 of the motorway to Hinkley Point. This should be built before work commences on the power station."

Mary Reece
"I am not convinced that nuclear energy is the best way to provide energy in the first place and therefore oppose the building of a new reactor. I believe that it does have an affect on health to those living near it and in light of previous 'accidents' and acts of God at nuclear power stations am unhappy at the potential risk to local inhabitants of the area surrounding them. Also, I do not think the local environment has the infrasructure necessary to support either the workers on a new build. The impact on a sensitive rural area would be detrimental."

The HSQE Department Ltd
"We fully support the application on basis that all safety requirements are assessed as acceptable by regulatory authorities and that the negative impact on residential communities during construction are minimised. We support the application because it will bring a massive stimulus to the local economy with higher skills, better paid jobs, more specialist business capabilities and valuable contracts. Skills and careers The proposed new build and operation at Hinkley C represents a great opportunity for young people looking for skilled careers in Somerset. There is an urgent need to enthuse them with the potential of skilled jobs in high level civil construction and engineering as well as the 60 year legacy of up to 900 highly skilled nuclear power careers. An approved application and the construction, engineering and allied works that follow will provide a major 10-year economic stimulus with Somerset not seeing this level of investment for several generations. Local business contract value and improved capability The individual business that would have the opportunity to work at the Hinkley Point C site will come in many shapes and sizes. Small contracts to smaller local businesses will give a massive boost to cash-flow at a time when there is a real struggle for survival in some sectors. For larger business winning contracts for an element of the project will mean they can keep and expand their workforce and importantly increase the skill levels of workers and management placing the business in a strong position to tender for more skilled work on projects in the future either within or outside of the nuclear industry. Inward Investment Building a new nuclear power station requires many skills not represented in Somerset. There are already a number of highly skilled companies who are making strategic decisions to base themselves in Somerset in order to be closer to the project. These highly skilled companies attracted to Somerset not only bring more employment and higher paid jobs to the area but also strengthen the mix of capabilities and markets serviced from Somerset. Boost to local economy We agree with the estimates that Hinkley Point C construction will bring £100 million per year to the local economy during peak construction, and £40 million per year during 60 years of operation. As important though these big numbers are it is crucial that the project finds ways to award small contracts to our smaller businesses that make up 80% of the business community. Continuing effort and focus will be required by EDF Energy and its contractors to ensure that valuable local engagement with business becomes one of the beacons for future major civil engineering projects to benchmark against. The Somerset Chamber of Commerce is keen to continue working with EDF Energy to make this a reality. Energy Security for business There is a global issue for business whereby it is critical that a consistent sustainable energy supply and price are achieved. Any delay that jeopardises this supply of low carbon energy will be very costly to business and will have significant negative impact on the vibrancy of the economy. Successive UK Governments have committed to supporting the increased supply of nuclear power with Hinkley Point C being at the forefront of investment by the private sector in the nuclear power industry in this country. This investment should not be unduly delayed. Managing the negative impact on business We recognise that the project will bring its own challenges for businesses as there will be competition for valuable resources (particularly staffing) and an impact on traffic management. More transparent work needs to be done to build confidence on how the impact will be minimised. Business will still be challenged, but we believe that Somerset will be massively better off with the investment and the improved skills that will be developed. Overall there will be a massive boost to the economy; However the business community accepts they will need to work through the challenges and look forward to a continued relationship with EDF Energy where mitigation will be constructive and positive."

Waverley Hotel
"I agree with the application in full. As long as all the health & safety has been put in place from what has been learnt from the Japanese disaster I believe the New build should go ahead. The whole country needs energy and Jobs & this will go along way to kick start our economy. I have bought this Bed & Breakfast knowing in my own mind that it will go ahead. My B & B is accommodtion in addition to the normal Tourist stays as it has not been fully operational for a number of years. EDF seems to have looked at all aspects and I welcome their investment."

Linda Anniss
"EDF wish to bring many lorries through Bridgwater & Cannington over the proposed 5 years of building. They have been asked by all locals to build a road from the M5 junction 23 across the levels straight to the Hinkley Point site. They have consistently refused to listen to local knowledge about the roads in this area. Bridgwater is constantly grid locked on all main routes into the town. All traffic to Hinkley Point will have to cross the river parrett over 2 bridges, one of which is regularly subject to repairs or enter the town along a congested road to a very difficult junction where the A38 mets the A39. The A39 main road is a dangerous road and any accident causes road blocks with no alternative route. I would like to see the IPC make EDF reconsider their decision to route traffic through Bridgwater and demand a road be built to by pass Bridgwater and Cannington completely. EDF's preferred option is a bypass for Cannington to the West side. This road will take 2 years to build during which time lorries will travel through the centre of the village at regular intervals of one every 2 minutes. This is a dangerous addition to the life of the people of Cannington as the lorries will have to pass the local shops, negotiate a 3 way junction right in the centre of the village and enter and exit the village in what is effectively a one way road as residents in high street have no off road parking The bypass once opened will only be needed for 3 more years and then it will serve no positive purpose for the workers at HP or the locals as the preferred route to the HP site will return to the main road through Cannington. Why spend a lot of money to build a road that will serve no purpose once the site is built? Also at the start of consultation EDF showed the West Cannington bypass built in a cutting limiting the impact on nearby properties. The engineers at a consultation meeting said a cutting was feasible but now they are refusing to do this too. EDF use the word 'legacy' for the infrastructure they wish to leave behind. In my opinion the best 'legacy' should be a proper route to Hinkley Point from junction 23 of the M5 to Hinkley Point. Local opinion generally asks for a bypass from junction 23. Cannington residents effected by the West Cannington bypass do not want the west bypass but if we must have it then build it in a cutting. Everything we have asked for has been ignored by EDF."

Sarah Blackburn
"I support the construction of a nuclear energy electricity generator because the country needs more electricity generating capacity it will bring jobs of different skill levels to an area with high male unemployment it will bring training opportunities to the area which will be particularly attractive to un-skilled and under-skilled young people Having skills and jobs will give these people the opportunity to work for a living and thus will enable them to continue living in the area"

Lynda Hallett
"i disagree with the application due to incresed traffic cousing constant noise plus damage to my home.it will make driving through bridgwater to work every day difficult decause of congestion.we need a bypass to aviod bridgwater"

Dr Peter Branson
"I had a feeling of confidence in the control and organisation of Hinkley A and B since they were managed and supported by the UK government and run under the control of the UK nuclear industry. Since the withdrawal of the UK backers, these stations have had a USA owner and now a French owner EDF. Both companies are profit making, presumably answering to there shareholders rather than the local population or UK government agencies. Commercial decisions may not always guarantee the health and safety of the local community. Hinkley C will be developed and managed by EDF who seem unwilling to give straight answers as to how the local small community will be affected by the influx of a large itinerant construction crew, changes to the local roads and Combwich wharf to import construction materials. For the first time nuclear waste will be stored long term on site, what reassurances and controls will be used to ensure the health and safety of the local population?"

A S Clarke
"I live on the Main Road running through the medieval village of Cannington. The existing road infrastructure in this area is already inadequate. Frequently when road accidents occur between Bridgwater and Cannington the area becomes gridlocked and effectively cut off from all Emergency Service and outside assistance. Bridgwater too has a woefully inadequate road network, and is frequently brought to an absolute stand still when accidents occur on the adjacent M5. The idea of commencing any further works at the proposed Hinkley C site before a direct road with rail support is built in a straight line from Dunball over the River Parrett is ludicrous and ill thought out. In the near future, decommisioning of Hinkley "A" continues, Hinkley "B" is soon due to decommision, and Hinkley "D" is already being spoken of as inevitable. If this were anywhere else in Europe, the direct road would have been built by now - ideally three lanes with the centre lane alternating for shift change times at the power station and an adjacent railway line for aggregate and flask movement in the many years of construction and servicing to come. Let us do something good for our children and theirs, and build a direct route from Dunball to Hinkley C before going any further. I see no pollution or noise studies in our village. I have a disabled wife who struggles to cross the road now with our accellerating traffic volumes. We can no longer sleep with the window open as the Main road is already over burdened at least twice a day. Use Governement money, Somerset money, EDF money, European Social Funding money and a small toll, and build the direct bypass first. Thank you."

John Willis on behalf of M Staples
"As an elderly person who has to travers the village by walking. I am very concerned as to my, and others like me, about the safety factor with the extra volume of traffic that Hinckley C is going to generate over a very long period. In my opinion the infrastructure of Cannington is not able to accommodate such an upheval. The provision of an alternative route that will by-pass Bridgwater and Cannington is imperative to be in place before any work commences on the site."

William Berrisford
"Increased volumes of traffic during the constuction phase and subsequent to completion Road network in Bridgwater and Cannington not designed to accomodate the volume of additional traffic, including heavy goods vehicles. Impact has not been properly assessed or mitigated Route for emergency vehicles on gridlocked roads? The best solution would be a proper road infrastructure from say junction 23 of the M5 directly to Hinkley Point or at least a bypass around Bridgwater and beyond to the West of Cannington"

John Smeaton
"I am delighted that this development will bring huge benefits to the area in employment, boost the economy and provide clean, efficient energy to the region."

Spaxton Parish Council
"The Parish Council is very concerned at the issue of traffic congestion in and around Bridgwater and urges EDF Energy to mitigate this via the construction of a new bypass."

Gabrielle Davis
"Dear Madam/ Sir, it is with some shock/horror that I have come realise that Hinkley Point is to be developed (with a fine carrot of job creation put forward), rather that to be dismantled. Ever since I realised that EDF had taken over South West Energy management I wondered as to how the development would unfold - here are the results. Decisions are made on calculated investment grounds. EDF promotes technologies benefitting business strategy schemes. They have also invested huge sums into the Olympic venture 2012.....I know I know, the whole economy of a western country, a nation, is at stake. Hinkley Point is the only nuclear power station in the South Western Counties. Here there is much lokal/national/international research undertaken in order to promote alternative sources for energy, wind and water based etc. The South West is surrounded by water. And Hinkley Point is situated next to a channel of water with the second highest tidal movement in the world. I cannot comprehend the wholesale sell-out of any moral debate about the dangers of nuclear energy sourcing, (at least with the technology available to date). Even if it would require huge re-thinking in the way we source power/energy in order to run such a particular economy. Having moved to Somerset in 1990, we were very weary of the Nuclear Power Station's proximity to the area in which we were looking to settle. Subjectively, the local inhabitants were, and are, concerned about it, at least the ones I seemed to have spoken to. During those early years my husband had a colleague in Minehead, who ran a well established business there, who's 12 year old son developed a cancer behind his ear at the time. It is long while back, and I do not know how this boy, this young man, may be living today, but at the time we heard from his parents, that through their sons grave illness they had become aware just how widespread cancer was amongst children, and adults, in the area surrounding Hinkley Point. The whole debate about Nuclear Energy sourcing is a poignant one: subjectively many people oppose it, on more emotive grounds, because no body has yet produced a study which conclusively links this form of power sourcing with 'cancer' for instance, or other long-term effects, and we all just seem to stick our heads into sand hills rather than worry about the 'waste' - - but nobody has an alternative, as yet. But I believe, resources, and man-power, should be combined to fuel the developments of alternative, sustainable sources for energy, especially in the South-West, where the sea is surrounding the country with its more or less un-tapped 'energy'..... It would be a unique opportunity for creating regional job sectors, and could put local universities (Cornwall) at the forfront of this research and development, as is partially the case already (Exeter/Plymouth/ Cornwall University....) What is noteworthy in this is, that Germany has plans to move out of Nuclear power sourcing alltogether, but I have just learnt, that they will have to tap into the French Nuclear Industrie's sources. Which seems so contradictory. I wished somebody would allow long-term feasabilty to outweigh short-term business interest."

John Vassalli
"My area of concern is Transport. My representation is that the EDF application for Hinkley Point C fails to address the transport infrastructure needs around Bridgwater and the A39 during the preparation, building and running of the Power Station. A northern by-pass is essential to alleviate congestion within Bridgwater and along the single carriageway A39 which in the EDF proposal all road traffic will use. There are well documented accident black-spots on the A39."

Thurloxton Parish Council
"The impact on the area of the increase of traffic."

Jim Rawe
"As a resident of   I have only one objection - transport planning or lack of it. The existing road infrastructure is totally inadequate for the proposed volume of HGV and other traffic. Traffic between Bridgwater and Cannington regularly grinds to a halt whenever there is an accident (quite a regular occurence with summer holiday traffic) because the alternative routes are VERY narrow country lanes. To ignore this critical factor is fundamental negligence and will come back to haunt those responsible if there is ever, God forbid, an accident, because emergency access will be abysmal or non-existent. There is a perfectly good proprosal that would take traffic from the Dunball M5 roundabout away Bridgwater and Cannington and provide a dedicated road - exactly what any emergency would need. Within Cannington, the proposed volume of HGV traffic will essentially destroy a village of farms and equestrianism with tractors and horses constantly on the roads. To industrialise it by default and ignore the wishes and welfare of residents would be corporate and governmental vandalism. EDF appear to have refused to address the issue of transport presumably for reasons of cost. It seems that the interests of local people just aren't worth it in their view. They don't want to pay for the safety and welfare of inconveniently situated people. They just want our roads. This project should not be given approval until the transport issue is adequately addressed."

Lyng Parish Council
"The impact of the traffic in the area"

Siobhan Buckley-Jones
"I have elderly friends who live in Somerset near Cannington. It is obvious that a dedicated road to Bridgwater bypass is essential to any construction project of the huge size of Hinkley Point C. How will emergency vehicles reach people in North Somerset when the A39 will be choked with vehicles during the 8 year construction period? Who will come on holiday to an area gridlocked by HGV's, one every 40 seconds during much of the day, I am told. Quality of life, the economy and even safety will be compromised if you do not reject the application on the grounds of inadequate road infrastructure. No works should be allowed until a dedicated road or Bridgwater bypass has been constructed."

Mrs Barbara Gammon
"Although I realise that Hinkley Point C will be developed in the future, I feel strongly that not enough thought or consideration has been given to the villagers of Cannington, nor in fact, the village itself. The route to Hinkley Point is via the A39 bypass, through the High Street and up Rodway. The houses in the High Street are old properties, many of which do not have foundations. The amount and volume of traffic travelling through the High Street is having detrimental effects of some of the properties, causing cracks to form in walls. The pavements are quite narrow with just one crossing outside the Spar Shop in the High Street. The trucks going to the site are large and noisy, causing distress to many older people. Also, if the traffic is coming off the motorway at Junction 23 it has to travel through Bridgwater. Again it seems to me that no thought has been given to the people of Bridgwater; the roads have not been constructed for this amount of traffic. The other contention is the A39 itself between Bridgwater and Cannington, specifically the sharp left-hand bend at Wembdon. There have been many accidents between vehicles and it is not suitable for extra large vehicles enroute to Cannington. The solution to all this traffic chaos would surely be to construct a dedicated bypass from Dunball straight across to Hinkley, thereby, bypassing all the traffic problems both in Bridgwater and Cannington, so keeping the village life in Cannington which we currently enjoy. Why should the village suffer whilst the these large companies run roughshod over the local populas? Why can't EDF accept that they have a duty of care to the community?"

Brian Luker MA
"I wish strongly to endorse the appication to erect Hinkley Point C nuclear Power Station. Nuclear is the only proven non-CO2 producing reliable base load technology that we have available to us today. Wind and solar are both intermittent, carbon capture does not exist and wave is highly dubious. Tidal is a dead option and is also intermittent. England is desperately short of modern capacity. Moreover, on the Government's own figures - and they are hardly enthusiasts - nuclear is cheapest. So do not delay in approving this appliaction by the operator that has more experience than any other in Europe."

Sue Thorne
"I would like to say in the strongest possible terms that I am opposed to the further expansion/building of Hinckley C. Already much disruption is being caused to our area with the proposed extra traffic and building in our area if this goes ahead it will further add to traffic chaos. I believe that EDF have already sought and obtained planning permission to build an access road to the site. This is the thin end of the wedge and if this road is built it will be a forgone conclusion that the new reactor will also be built. I am totally unbelieving of the statement by EDF that if the new reactor is not built the road will be demolished and the countryside restored to its previous condition, this will be virtually impossible to achieve and will take years for eco systems to regenerate. We live in Burnham on Sea and our seafront view always has the constant overshadowing of the old A and B reactor housing to add to this will be a further blot on the landscape. Added to all of this there is the constant fear of Nuclear accident of which there have been several over the years, I will not mention here the excess cases of Cancers in the Bridgwater Bay area as I am sure that many other experts on the subject will be expressing their concerns and they are higher qualified that myself in the subject. The Government is very keen to invest in renewable energy though there are a lot of folks out there who oppose wind power, and I must add that I am one, yet another blot/hazard on the landscape. We live on and Island for goodness sake why are we not investing in wave turbines as I believe are being installed in Scotland. The wind may not blow but we are guaranteed the tide will go in and out twice a day, I am sure that this would be a much better solution and also a job creation enterprise. The wave turbines must be fish/marine mammal safe but I feel as do many other people I talk to that this is a way forward and must be much better and safer for the environment."

Peter Griffiths
"I wish to offer my support to the proposals by EDF to construct power station C at Hinkley Point, Somerset. All proposals on this scale will have a possibly negative effect on local traffic but such costs are out-weighed by the benefits arising from the project. In particular it will create much needed employment in the construction industry with many positions being filled by local people. EDF have undertaken links with Bridgwater College that will bring much needed investment in training to high levels for locals - particularly young people. The form of power plant proposed by EDF is well known and has exacting safety features unheard of in earlier nuclear plants. Safety is rightly considered a crucial issue and I believe the procedures planned will ensure the safety of staff and local citizens."

H Heard
"I am happy with the application as it stands and hope to see the project proceed as swiftly as possible."

Durleigh Parish Council
"I wish to register as the Clerk to Durleigh Parish Council and be recognised as the official representative of that local authority, although Councillors may wish to register as private individuals. The Council with many of its neighbouring Parish and Town Council's have grave concerns over the perceived inadequacy of EDF's proposed transport plans and the effect they will have on already strained local road networks. We have concerns on the negative impacts on traffic flow being detrimental to existing businesses, have an adverse affect on other inward investment, our important tourism industry and the quality of life of our communities."

Maureen Farrell
"I support the development of nuclear energy. I was born and educated in Taunton at a time when the Hinkley Point one was built. I understand the benefits it would bring to the area in terms of employment, short term and long term and the benefits nationally with clean energy."

D G Gammon
"Why should Cannington village and its villagers be the scapegoats to EDF who can afford to build a dedicated bypass around the village if they wanted to. It seems they can't be bothered to adhere to the views of the villagers so it is up to us to make them listen. Neither the roads nor the infrastructure are capable of handling this increase of traffic through and around the village so they have to be made to see that an alternative route is necessary. Why is it so difficult for them to understand??? Why don't the views of the villagers (mere mortals) count???"

David Polden
"Nuclear power stations are dangerous, uneconomic, depend use a raw material, naturally-occurring uranium which will run out by the end of the century, even at present rates of usage, are environmentally detrimental, do not provide a solution to global warming, produce waste which will remain highly-radioactive for tens of thousands of years and for which no facilities for safe long-term storage are available now or in the forseeable future. The building of power stations according to the EPR design has proved extremely problematic, leading to spiralling costs and many years slippage from the original completion date."

Mrs B L Gammon on behalf of Mr D Langley
"The increased traffic will exit the motorway at Junction 23 of the M5 signposted to Bridgwater. This town, as with Cannington, does not have the resources to cope with increased traffic destined to Hinkley Point C. The A39 between Bridgwater and Cannington cannot cope with increased heavy traffic; it is not suitable and sees accidents happening regularly. What will happen if an accident occurs with a car and one of the large vehicles travelling along the opposite way? Carnage and complete disruption to the rest of the traffic. Where can this traffic go? Through the village lanes and there again, chaos will occur, as everyone will have the same idea - to miss the holdup on the main road. The village of Cannington is not made for heavy traffic travelling through regularly during day and night; it is a country village and should remain so. Hinkley Point C will be constructed in the future, I have no doubt about that, but what EDF need to understand is that a suitable dedicated bypass is required to miss Bridgwater and especially Cannington. Is this so difficult for EDF to understand? Have they fully done their research into the infrastructure? I don't think so. Someone needs to stand up and stop these bullies. Our Parish Council are trying to do the best for the village but can we also depend on Sedgemoor Council?"

George Pope
"Disagree with this project for the following reasons: Lack of Traffic Infrastructure 1. Bridgwater/Cannington area not fit for purpose, high risk on health & safety grounds. 2. Route proposed from Bridgwater - Cannington A39 is a "Red Route" and has been closed up to 6 hrs for a number of major accidents including fatalities. There are no alternative routes for fast access to Hinkley Point/Cannington and surrounding villages for emergency vehicles or evacuation. 3. The number of vehicles that will be directed through Cannington High Street and Rodway HIll are a health & safety concern on the grounds of noise, pullution and narrow streets etc. On the brow of Rodway Hill the crossroads are blind in both directions and only a footpath on one side of the road - no plans to address this situation re safety. 4. EDF have consistently refused to give information on their projected vehicle movements with precise figures to the general public, SDC, SCC & West Somerset Councils."

Peter Smith
"The building of Nuclear power stations on coastal sites is inherently unsafe as history proves. On the 11 March 2011 a large earthquake off the North East coast of Japan followed by a massive tsunami led to a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns, and releases of radioactive materials at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. It is the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. Flooding and earthquake damage hindered external assistance. In the hours and days that followed, reactors 1, 2 and 3 experienced full meltdown. As workers struggled to cool and shut down the reactors, several hydrogen explosions occurred. Japanese authorities have admitted that lax standards and poor oversight contributed to the nuclear disaster. They have come under fire for their handling of the emergency, and have since engaged in a pattern of withholding damaging information and denying facts of the accident. On 22 August 2011 a spokesman of the Japanese Government mentioned the possibility, that some areas of the 20km evacuation zone around the nuclear plant for "could stay for some decades a forbidden zone" meaning that up to 300,000 people may never be able to return to their homes. On 30 January 1607, widespread floods probably caused by a tsunami, resulted in the drowning of an estimated 3,000 or more people, with houses and villages swept away, an estimated 200 square miles (518 km2) of farmland inundated and livestock destroyed, wrecking the local economy along the coasts of the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary. The coasts of Devon and the Somerset Levels as far inland as Glastonbury Tor, 14 miles (23 km) from the coast, were also affected. The sea wall at Burnham-on-Sea gave way, and the water flowed over the low lying levels and moors. Thirty villages in Somerset were affected, including Brean which was "swallowed up" and where seven out the nine houses were destroyed with 26 of the inhabitants dying. For ten days the Church of All Saints at Kingston Seymour, near Weston-super-Mare, was filled with water to a depth of 5 feet (1.5 m). A chiselled mark remains showing that the maximum height of the water was 8 metres above sea level. Do we really want to engineer a repeat of the Fukushima tragedy in Somerset??"

John Richard Best
"During the construction phase of Hinkley C the projected increase in traffic along the C182 (Cannington to Hinkley road) will raise safety issues at certain junctions. The junction of the Otterhampton/Steart road with the C182 has a poor visibility splay to the west and traffic travelling from the west enter a lengthy blind spot immediately before the junction. The danger of collision at this junction could be greatly reduced with minor changes to the kerbs, road markings and signage."

James Richard Jowett
"I am a Yorkshire man who having spent 25 years in the Army Forces left in 1997 and settled   in what I thought was going to the the idilic setting for my wife, family and myself. In the last 14 years that is hoiw we have found it however with the onset of the plans and the loss of the peace and tranquility and the additional traffic and disruption of our village we are already looking considering relocation."

Dr Kenneth Walters
"There is not a suitable road transport system to support the increase in traffic that this project will inevitably produce. Bridgwater and the road structure around the town are already clogged up with heavy good vehicles. EDF have suggested that a few minor alterations to the roads will relieve the potential future traffic problems. This is not so. The originally suggested new bridge over the River Parrett carrying a direct road link from junction 23 of the M5 motorway to Hinkley Point should be re-instated and required to be accepted by EDF as part of the planning approval."

Judith Harding
"I am very worried about the amount of traffic that there will be coming through the village of Cannington and also the main A39, it is already very busy and I cannot imagine what it will be like if a by-pass of some sort is not provided, chaos is what will happen."

Mrs Peggy Walters
"A major concern for the people of Bridgwater is the amount of time it takes to drive from one side of the town to the other. There is often gridlock, especially on the smaller country roads following accidents (that often happen) on the A39 west of Bridgwater. With the increased traffic that the building of a new plant at Hinkley Point is bound to bring traffic conditions will become worse. A solution would be to build a relief road from the north of Cannington to Dunball (Junction 23 of the M5)."

Highbridge, Hunstspill & Burnham District Wildflowers
"As Chairman of the Highbridge, Huntspill & Burnham District Wildfowlers I would have concerns to any restrictions to wildfowling in the Excepted area due to this application, during or after the construction period. Access points to the foreshore need to be maintained, and the security on site need to be aware that Wildfowlers will be using various routes to the foreshore at any time of day during the shooting season. Working together now should help both sides in the future."

David Hopewell
"I fully support the application for the nuclear power station at Hinckley Point C. Whilst such sites do carry risks during construction and operation, the need for non-fossil based power sources are essential to the future of this country. I hope that planning permission will be given speedily so that tendering and construction may commence."

Sarah Fox
"Please do not let this proposed development go ahead UNTIL major improvements have been made to the A38/A39 through Bridgwater and a proper bypass has been built for the village of Cannington. The roads are hugely inadequate as they are to deal with tremendous amount of heavy traffic!"

Danny Nicholls
"I agree with the application, as it brings good quality jobs and decent money to the area. But the main road though the village of Cannington, does get very busy now in the mornings let alone once the big lorries start coming through, so I feel that the Cannington bypass needs to be built as soon as possible."

Dr Fran Martin
"I am against nuclear energy in principle. In terms of sustainability I believe that economic, environmental and social concerns should be taken into account, with a balance being achieved across all three. In this case I do not believe that environmental concerns are being fully considered. We do not know the long-term effect of disposing of nuclear waste and are relying on technology to come up with a solution, but this has not yet happened and I believe the risks are too great to continue to invest in nuclear energy. The recent problems in Japan following the Tsunami are an example of this. I believe that a mixture of renewable energy and a drive to find ways to reduce energy consumption are the way forward at a global scale."

Sandra Follett
"I am not fundamentally opposed to the power station itself but am greatly concerned by the implications of the tremendous amount of traffic involved for what could be more than 10 years, ie the effect this will have on the village of Cannington, the town of Bridgwater and the tourist industry."

Theo Simon
"Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area ( one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset, Devon and South Wales, including my family and friends, in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events.Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for it's eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents. Lastly, this proposed development is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their future expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

Stephen Kimsey on behalf of Huish Champflower Parish Council
"Huish Champflower is a rural parish located at the edge of Exmoor in West Somerset. The proposed development will produce many new jobs at the proposed site. Our community will suffer increased traffic as a result of increased commuting to the site - particularly those travelling from the direction of Exeter . We have already noted a small - but noticeable increase in traffic since the preliminary work started. There will also be increased pressure on the housing supply. Again we are aware of an increasing number of site personnel (from UK and France) or are either currently located in and around - or looking to locate in and around - our Parish. This clearly impacts local people seeking homes, and creates a temporary and misleading housing shortage. Huish Champflower Parish Council will monitor the developing impact of the proposed development, with particular focus on traffic and housing. The highways through our Parish are not suited to much additional traffic."

Geoff May
"I am interested in the safety aspects of the application particularly in respect of the problems encountered at Fukishima."

Lynn Bunniss on behalf of N Carter
"These are the views of both Ms Bunniss and Mr Carter. • The working hours of (a) the development of the wharf, (b) the construction of the lay down area and (c) the daily operation of the laydown area and wharf at Combwich are wholly unreasonable and totally unacceptable. • The fact that the laydown area will be built on a flood plain, despite EDF's plans for controlling excess water, is a disaster waiting to happen, given the weather patterns we're now experiencing. • We're extremely concerned that it's going to take approximately 90,000 HGV movements to remove more than 800,000 tonnes of earth from the proposed laydown area, plus a further 123,000 tonnes from Combwich Wharf! Furthermore, it is clear that there will be, not only deliveries by the river, but a vast amount of deliveries by road. This colossal increase in traffic, construction/traffic noise, vehicle/light pollution, disruption and mess this will cause is wholly unacceptable. • We cannot find in any document written confirmation of how many containers are to be used at Combwich. However a drawing in Plan 2.11 illustrates a total of 576 - presumably to be delivered, stored, opened, closed, loaded, unloaded, for a period of 6 years. It is physically impossible to do this quietly and will add to the already noisy site and is wholly unacceptable. • The scale and purpose of the laydown area in such an area of natural beauty will be an appalling eyesore and unbearably noisy, tantamount to living close to a commercial city dock area. • There is to be no change to the C182 road, which passes by the entrance to Combwich, nor any plans for an alternative route to Hinkley. We're constantly told that this country lane has already been "developed" for Hinkley B and needs no further work. That was 30 years ago. Hinkley C is to be 5 times the size of B! The vast increase in traffic on this lane will be unbearable and untenable. • The lack of compensation being offered to the village of Combwich is laughable. EDF are throwing £millions at various organisations in the area but all that's in the offing for Combwich is double glazing for about a dozen residents closest to the site. Not even an offer to turn the wharf into a decent marina whilst they're doing all that work. Combwich is a "village"- of approximately 310 houses - on protected greenbelt land. We have specifically chosen to live in a sleepy, peaceful, pretty village and this will be totally and irreparably annihilated if this 9 year disruption to our lives goes ahead. EDF are building a temporary jetty at Hinkley and have acres of spare land there. It's incomprehensible why they don't develop that jetty into a permanent one and take ALL construction materials direct to site, avoiding traffic congestion through Bridgwater and the ripping up and upheaval of the surrounding areas? Afterall this is a 100 year project! And then there's Hinkley D!"

Andrew G Vickery
"1. Build a new Hinkley Point access road to the north of Bridgwater and Cannington. 2. If one above is not possible (and declare the reasons) construct the proposed western by-pass for Cannington before commencing the primary works at Hinkley Point. 3. In the event of an accident on the A39 experience shows huge delays result. To assist the emergency services EDF should fund:- a) an Air Ambulance in association with the Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance; and b) a permanent police presence in Cannington to direct traffic and deal with daily traffic issues. 4. Following the end of construction works, the Park and Ride facility in Cannington could be converted into a community hall for the benefit of local residents and the area landscaped to avoid the site becoming one for industrial use."

David Parish
"I believe that data about the efficiency of nuclear is manipulative and biased because it is economically cheap. In reality, from its build to its decommission and storage of waste, a nuclear power plant takes a lot of energy. More than it produces in electricity if you include mining of materials, fuel for building and decommissioning, fuel for transporting workers involved, and food eaten by workers involved and all of the above for storage of waste afterwards. I am also worried about radiation and do not agree with allowing even the slightest chance of catastrophy. My view is that there are better solutions. If every building had solar panels, we would not need many power plants. I was happy with the idea back along for building the 'Severn Barrage'. Personally I cannot accept Hinkley Point C."

John Piper
"I wish to object to EDF's application to construct Hinkley C, with particular focus on the 'main' road to the site. The C182 is really just a country lane which connects local villages, it is surely not suitable for transporting the materials and heavy plant necessary for this scale of development. The road surface is very uneven and is breaking up in several places at present. The extra construction traffic will increase the danger to local residents, including farm traffic, cyclists & horse riders."

Peter Waldschmidt
"If a new nuclear power station is built at Hinkley Point it will increase the incidence of cancer in Burnham on Sea. Other power stations have released radioactive materials into the atmosphere, and there is no reason to think that Hinkley C would not do the same. The countryside around Hinkley Point would be irrevocably damaged, even if EDF attempted to restore the landscape to the status quo ante. There is also the increased danger of a serious accident as at Fukushima and Chernobyl. Hinkley C would also be a blot on the landscape and cause traffic chaos in Bridgwater. It is important that before construction of the power station a new bypass is built avoiding both Cannington and Bridgwater due to the traffic problems which would otherwise be caused."

John Hucker
"My major concerns are about the tremendous amount of heavy traffic through our small village and on the A38/A39 through Bridgwater.The solution for safety reasons alone would be a supply road from Dunball to the other side of Combwich which would alleviate all construction traffic and also a secondary route in case of emergency this road should be constructed before planning is granted."

W R Walker
"I agree with the construction of another nuclear power station at Hinckley Point. Nuclear power is efficient - unlike the proliferation of the many projected wind farms over the Somerset Levels, clean and sustainable. It is likely that there will be considerable disruption in the area but, it is hoped, that it will also bring much needed work to the County - where possible, the local population should be employed; afterall it is they that will be most inconvenienced during construction, a construction that will benefit the Country overall"

Michael Leaver
"I wish to know whether the IPC are taking into consideration the Barnes Report. If not, why not."

Rebecca Hopkins
"I have yet to read all the information supplied but do wish it known that the road structure around bridgwater would simply not be able to cope with the demand of traffic going through it. As a resident of Cannington which will be greatly affected by this, I feel that the Cannington bypass needs to be in place before any building work commences, we cannot have 21 months worth of lorries coming through the village."

Josie
"Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area ( one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset, Devon and South Wales, including my family and friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for it's eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

James David Mercer
"I am a private citizen, living in Somerset. I would far rather have a large power power station, on one site, instead of hundreds, or maybe thousands of wind turbines scattered over the countryside. However, my concern is: How is the power to be distributed? Will the existing pylons be used, and if not, will this mean another lot of pylons marching out from the site and spreading out over the countryside?"

Grant Taylor
"I currently work in the Nuclear Industry at Hinkley Point 'A' Site. I have a comprehensive understanding of the industry and the strict regulations that surround it. I have a positive view and believe that a Station should be built. I believe it can only benefit the local area once built. I do however have serious reservations with regards to EDF making very little provision for infrastructure. I also have serious concerns about housing workers close to Bridgwater. I have vast experience of 'travelling' Contractors, and they tend to be a certain 'type' of person which generally results in unfavourable behaviour, usually fuelled by Alcohol. Nuclear waste and by products are also an issue, which the UK has failed to address. With the Low Level Waste Depository nearing capacity, storage of waste on the site can't be the long term answer."

Roger Wrayford
"I support this application based on the economic arguments presented and the strategic need for electricity in the near future as other stations come off line. West Somerset needs high skill jobs as these are scarce locally. My children and others need the opportunity that this new station provides. Friends (with teenage children) are already enquiring as to what prospects may exist at the new station. Particularly there is interest in the mechanical trades and the need for opportunities to move on from the local village garage or wherever. The prospect of apprenticeships and worthwhile careers after school are important to motivate people in an area where the usual work is low skill and poorly paid. Overall the huge economic benefits outweigh any logistical issues caused by the construction, which in any case, are mitigated by the EDF proposals."

R E Baldwin
"Living on the main through road in Cannington my first concern is the exta traffic that will be generated through the construction and running of Hinkley C. At present I am unable to have my front windows open during the summer months as the traffice noise is so loud, I am also awoken at night througout the year by traffic noise which is especially heavy during shift changes at Hinkley. The pollution and vibration caused by the extra traffic especially heavy construction traffic is also a concern as this will hve an impact on the health of the residents and their properties. I feel a direct route to Hinkley bypassing Bridgwater and Cannington should be built prior to the construction of Hinkley C as the roads in and around Bridgwater are already fairly congested paticularly at work, school and shift changes at Hinkley point. During the summer months this is exacerbated by holiday traffic. The A39 from Bridgwater to Cannington is prone to hold ups especially when there are road works or an accident has occured which is a fairly common event, in fact their have been several fatalities on this part of the A39 due to accidents, heavy traffic will only increase this risk. According to the winter addition of Somerset Council news under the heading - Hinkley Fact File, 20,000- 25,000 jobs will be created during the construction of the power station, 900 workers required when operational and 250,000 visitors per year to the visitor centre. How much extra traffic will this gererate? This fact file fails to mention the extra traffic which will have to pass through Cannington during the construction period and also traffic that will be necessary for the construction of the new wetlands centre at Steart and the extra visitors this will incur. Although there is a proposal to build a Western Bypass around Cannington this is not anticipated to be started until 2006 which is too little to late for the residents of Cannington and the impact all the extra traffic will have on the quality of their lives"

John White
"Greetings People 1. Nuclear as an energy source is perhaps not the best way to obtain energy. Other methods are available such that they negate the nuclear stance of money and jobs to the district. Indeed jobs and money are not the only rational for selecting nuclear. These reasons are perhaps more political than rational. The fate of the nuclear waste has never been aired. 2. The legal interest in the land is occupation of the foreshore. EDF propose to occupy the foreshore using a seawall, and a jetty. Firstly the jetty. A proposed temporary structure. The EDF stance is it is a single purpose structure - and possibly can not be used to support any other use. My suggestion is that it could be used for other purposes. As a structure it should have instrumentation attached to monitor it's behaviour to external forcing. At the recent hearing there was no mention of any requirement to monitor the structure, and it's behaviour in a dynamic environment. Such instrumentation could also monitor the surrounding hydrodynamics and sediment transport. This could be most useful for coastal processes. Secondly, the seawall could impact coastal processes. To date there is no information available how this is to be addressed. Instrumentation on the jetty, namely a laser scanner coupled with hydrodynamic instrumentation could go a long way to better our understanding of coastal processes. I have difficulties with this window. I tried to enlarge it and now have only a partial view. This may make the script English disjointed. A similar project, mounting a scanner on a jetty is proposed at Duck, North Carolina, where this is for a sand beach. By the means proposed here it could be possible to obtain real time, and near continuous data. Most other methods obtain select weather data, and certainly not event (storm) data. There is already a tidal station and a wave recorder close by. How the seawall is to enhance the coastal environment, or how EDF (or local Government) propose to direct funding towards enhancing, and or better understanding of the coastal environment is not clear. 3). How the project will impact an already at times, busy road, and small local communities is not clear. The road to Hinkley from Bridgwater at certain times of the day is very busy. 4). How the cumulative impacts of Hinkley and the Stert wetland project will impact roads - and coastal processes is unclear. Certainly the impacts could be pervasive. Thank you"

David McCubbin
"I broadly agree with the construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley C site. As a local resident my main concerns relate to the restricted mitigation measures offered by eDF for the traffic related to construction, provision of amenities and very limited local community benefits. More specifically in respect of traffic I would urge: i) Planning consent should be subject to a new northern bypass for Bridgwater from Junction 23 of the M5 to connect up with the A39 west of Cannington. Building this road would remove a significant portion of the expected construction traffic from the A38 and A39 in and around Bridgwater. The road infrastructure is already far too busy and traffic jams are already a daily occurrence on the A38 into and out of Bridgwater between the M5 at junction 23 and junction 24; ii) As a regular user of the C182, travelling by bicycle, from home to Hinkley Point I believe consent should also be subject road improvement measures to safely accommodate the additional heavy loads travelling between Cannington, Combwich Wharf and the Hinkley Point C site. I believe these measures should comprise a) road widening, b) provision of a cycle path as it dangerous to cycle when traffic volumes are high during outages at the existing ‘B’ site power station , c) a 40 mph speed limit between Hinkley and Cannington and d) a roundabout to mitigate a potential accident hotspot at the junction between the C182 and the turning into Combwich iii) It is disappointing that only about 5000 out of the 20,000-25,000 construction workers are forecast to be from Somerset. Just one third of the workers are forecast to be homebased (within a 90 minute commute). I believe eDF should aspire to a target of 50% to reduce traffic journeys I am concerned that the provision that with a projected peak workforce of ~5600 workers over an 18 month period that the provision of 1510 bed spaces is insufficient. Clearly it is desirable to use private accommodation but I believe consent should be subject to plans being in place to expand eDF bedspaces at short notice. Finally, very limited local community benefits are being offered to the villages in the vicinity of Hinkley (e.g. essentially zero for Stockland Bristol some 5 miles from Hinkley Point and which has a Sports and Social Club with urgent need of roof repairs to sum of £50,000). I believe sum of say at least £5M per annum should be held in trust to allow local communities to apply for funding for local projects by way of long-term compensation."

Melanie Baldwin
"Living on the Main Road through Cannington my primary concern is the increase in traffic this build will generate both in and around Bridgwater and through Cannington. At present I am unable to open my front windows due to traffic noise and am awoken at night by traffic noise particularly during Hinkley point shift changes. The A39 between Bridgwater and Cannington is very often congested and is prone to long hold ups when road works are in progress and can be closed for hours if an accident occurs which is a fairly common event The only satisfactory solution would be to build a direct route to the power station avoiding Bridgwater and Cannington and therby giving a faster and more efficient traffic flow to the site , also a better option for emergency vehicles should they be required. There has been a proposal to build a western bypass avoiding Cannington but I understand this will not be started until 2006 which will be far too little too late. I cannot see the need for a park and ride in Cannington causing unecessary upheaval when the power station is a very short distance away. Surely a better site causing less disruption all round could be found at a motorway junction or even better provide parking at the site itself."

South West Against Nuclear
"1. Construction Traffic (important as affecting locals) - Traffic Vehicle movement in Cannington every 40 seconds during an 11 hour working day, purely for Hinkley Point C construction, in addition to normal Hinkley, and other, local traffic. - Villagers saying consultation on traffic was not done properly by EDF. - Damage to Houses by vibration of traffic not taken into consideration by EDF. - 93% of Cannington villagers do not want the EDF traffic through their village. - These are unbearable living conditions for villagers as Hinkley C is scheduled for a minimum of ten years construction. Plus overwhelming traffic pollution - Villagers are against compulsory purchase of their homes and worry about the devaluation of their property.. -should there be a nuclear accident at Hinkley Point traffic congestion would hamper evacuation process. 2.Contamination of land -EDF's commissioned AMEC to take samples and make measurements of radioactivity at various locations on the proposed site for HinkleyC. Green Audit independently examined the data to see if there were any radiological safety issues. There is evidence of enriched Uranium pollution on the land. (!) http://www.stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf 3. Land Status - designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) - a Site of Community Importance (SCI) - the estuary is also designated as a wetland of international importance - a Site of Special Scientific Interest.SSSIs (e.g. the Gwent Levels SSSI complex) - Irreplaceable ancient woodland and hedges. -New nuclear build would require spent fuel (too hot to move) to be stored on site for 160 years. This would be dangerous at Hinkley due to the limestone geology of the site and in case of an accident at the plant. 4.Health -Low level radiation is emitted by nuclear power stations this has been proved to be dangerous to young children. -Regular controlled and uncontrolled venting of radioactive particles will put the local population at risk. In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. Cancer rates in Burnham on Sea are up to five times higher than the national average. Hinkley C will add to the dangers to public health. http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/pearson.htm http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_PR_COMARE14_critique.pdf Highly radioactive waste stored on site for 160 years will increase health risks. 5. Local Jobs -EDF says several thousand people will be employed constructing Hinkley C. The Flamanville scenario show EDF use subcontractors to import foreign workers vulnerable to exploitation and are being accused by French Unions of modern day slavery. http://www.socialdemocrats.eu/gpes/public/detail.htm?id=135913&section=NER&category=NEWS&startpos=21&topicid=-1&request_locale=EN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx6pcqdOa7Y 6. Democracy -EDF consultations not widely publicised. -There has been no proper national debate and the government and the industry have colluded to stop information coming out over the Fukushima nuclear disaster. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima -The sustainable development committee advised the government against nuclear. Expecting opposition the government introduced a fast track infrastructure planning programme (the IPC) -Stop Hinkley have collected 12,750 against HinkleyC. -Road signs of Hinkley C are up already giving the impression of a done deal weakening local opposition. The local council salami slicing the application gives the same impression - The whole application is based on the lie that Nuclear is a green technology and will save us from Climate Change. (Hinkley Point is on the coast of the second biggest tidal wave in the world, climate change makes coastal areas vulnerable to flood risk ) http://www.link2portal.com/council-give-go-ahead-groundworks-hinkley-point 7. Power lines - new pylons are twice the size of the existing ones ( height and width ) 8. How local is locality? -Bristol City council , Exeter and South Wales have had no input on the decision making on new nuclear. Accidents at Hinkley Point would make these areas uninhabitable and emergency services not able to cope. -This national infrastucture project hasn't had national input though it will have consequences lasting generations. Fukushima and Chernobyl have shown that radiation knows no borders."

Stop New Nuclear
"1. Construction Traffic (important as affecting locals) - Traffic Vehicle movement in Cannington every 40 seconds during an 11 hour working day, purely for Hinkley Point C construction, in addition to normal Hinkley, and other, local traffic. - Villagers saying consultation on traffic was not done properly by EDF. - Damage to Houses by vibration of traffic not taken into consideration by EDF. - 93% of Cannington villagers do not want the EDF traffic through their village. - These are unbearable living conditions for villagers as Hinkley C is scheduled for a minimum of ten years construction. Plus overwhelming traffic pollution - Villagers are against compulsory purchase of their homes and worry about the devaluation of their property.. -should there be a nuclear accident at Hinkley Point traffic congestion would hamper evacuation process. 2.Contamination of land -EDF's commissioned AMEC to take samples and make measurements of radioactivity at various locations on the proposed site for HinkleyC. Green Audit independently examined the data to see if there were any radiological safety issues. There is evidence of enriched Uranium pollution on the land. (!) http://www.stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf 3. Land Status - designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) - a Site of Community Importance (SCI) - the estuary is also designated as a wetland of international importance - a Site of Special Scientific Interest.SSSIs (e.g. the Gwent Levels SSSI complex) - Irreplaceable ancient woodland and hedges. -New nuclear build would require spent fuel (too hot to move) to be stored on site for 160 years. This would be dangerous at Hinkley due to the limestone geology of the site and in case of an accident at the plant. 4.Health -Low level radiation is emitted by nuclear power stations this has been proved to be dangerous to young children. -Regular controlled and uncontrolled venting of radioactive particles will put the local population at risk. In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. Cancer rates in Burnham on Sea are up to five times higher than the national average. Hinkley C will add to the dangers to public health. http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/pearson.htm http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_PR_COMARE14_critique.pdf Highly radioactive waste stored on site for 160 years will increase health risks. 5. Local Jobs -EDF says several thousand people will be employed constructing Hinkley C. The Flamanville scenario show EDF use subcontractors to import foreign workers vulnerable to exploitation and are being accused by French Unions of modern day slavery. http://www.socialdemocrats.eu/gpes/public/detail.htm?id=135913&section=NER&category=NEWS&startpos=21&topicid=-1&request_locale=EN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx6pcqdOa7Y 6. Democracy -EDF consultations not widely publicised. -There has been no proper national debate and the government and the industry have colluded to stop information coming out over the Fukushima nuclear disaster. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima -The sustainable development committee advised the government against nuclear. Expecting opposition the government introduced a fast track infrastructure planning programme (the IPC) -Stop Hinkley have collected 12,750 against HinkleyC. -Road signs of Hinkley C are up already giving the impression of a done deal weakening local opposition. The local council salami slicing the application gives the same impression - The whole application is based on the lie that Nuclear is a green technology and will save us from Climate Change. (Hinkley Point is on the coast of the second biggest tidal wave in the world, climate change makes coastal areas vulnerable to flood risk ) http://www.link2portal.com/council-give-go-ahead-groundworks-hinkley-point 7. Power lines - new pylons are twice the size of the existing ones ( height and width ) 8. How local is locality? -Bristol City council , Exeter and South Wales have had no input on the decision making on new nuclear. Accidents at Hinkley Point would make these areas uninhabitable and emergency services not able to cope. -This national infrastucture project hasn't had national input though it will have consequences lasting generations. Fukushima and Chernobyl have shown that radiation knows no borders."

Peter Roberts
"As one who lives 30 miles downwind of Hinkley Point I am concerned that the very nature of the geography of the Severn Estuary is such that the effect of any tsunami or large wave would be greatly amplified as has happened in the past. No Nuclear Station could possibly be afforded to be built to survive such an event. Saying such an event is unlikely is not an answer which you can guarantee. In the interest of the down wind residents of Somerset I believe the project should not go ahead."

Joshua Schwieso
"I wish to express my concern regarding the transport of persons and material to the site. It appears that the developers are intending to use the existing roads with minor improvements. These are already loaded to the maximum due to the recent large scale developments around Bridgwater. The original proposal to build a third - and smaller - power station at Hinkley included a northern bypass for Bridgwater. I believe that without such a new road, not just Bridgwater town but all the country lanes and villages to the west of Bridgwater will suffer extreme congestion, especially whenever the A39 is blocked by accidents."

Carhampton Parish Council
"The Parish Council wishes to be kept informed about the progress of the application and its impact on local residents, businesses and tourism, particularly the latter which could have knock-on effects on West Somerset."

Christine Carr
"I believe that the impact on my village from the planned hinkley point C, will cause so much traffic on the A39 which is already at a saturation point during the summer months. Holdups dew to accidents can stop us entering or leaving the village for hours already, so any more traffic will just add to this nightmare. we want a new road to come from Dunball straight to Hinkley C and then at least we can get in and out of the village without any extra traffic causing delays and hardship to the residents of Cannington."

Chris Chatfield
"I wish to express my 100% approval of this application. It is already long overdue and as far as I'm concerned it needs to be built and operating as soon as possible. I find all the arguments to the contrary are without base. There is already a nuclear power station at the proposed site so the environmental impact of the new station will be minimal compared to the existing installation. The new power station will provide a much needed shot in the arm for the economy of Somerset and will reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels. Hopefully it will also mean that we need less of the ugly and uneconomic windmills. This application has, as already stated, my 100% support."

Fiona Kirton
"EDF has not gone far enough to safeguard communities which face massive upheaval during the 10-year building programme, nor will they leave enough legacy of improved infrastructure to compensate for this. Many locals will be priced out of the house buying and rental market when thousands of workers descend on the area, traffic congestion will hit businesses and tourism decline. Bridgwater, is an important town struggling to improve economically strategically there should be much greater consideration to maintaining its current economic performance, and contributing to its future regeneration plans and supporting a more prosperous town centre. Bridgwater and the surrounding villages will be damaged due to increased transport congestion, severance, quality of life and negative perceptions, amongst residents, businesses and investors due to disruption and delay and social issues. From an initial review of the Development Consent Order the impacts on community well-being and quality of life have not been assessed in any depth.” Not enough consideration has been given to this site on a low lying area on an estuary that has historically seen a Tsunami (1600) and high tides. Given the disaster in Japan and the fact that now many countries are reviewing the safety issues of reactors on similar sites I do not believe this is now a safe site for this reactor."

Sally Kuhlmann
"There are many aspects of the exhistence, construction and operation of Hinckley Point C that concern me, and I have listed these below: . The proposed power station is a resonably new type which has not really been tried and tested. . It is not only to be constructed on a fault line, but will also be near to a earth quake site. The BBC made a documentary on this very subject in 2005, and the recent events in Fukushima, Japan spell out the possible scenario. . The system will use sea water for cooling, and pump it back out to sea again. There is a risk of contamination. . From a local point of view, my concerns are regarding the volume of traffic - heavy goods, buses and cars - which will cause congestion for local people going about their daily business, but also holiday makers and caravaners will find the whole journey unbearable and will ultimately seek other holiday resorts to go to. . The fact that hotels, bed and breakfast and locals are being urged by the council to registers for availability to rent out to migrant workers - despite the comments that there will be thousands of local jobs (which I truly don't believe, take Butlins as an example) - where would the holiday makers that come here to walk and enjoy the Somerset coastline stay if the majority of places are taken? This could destroy local tourism. I have personally experienced terminal 5 being built at Heathrow and the Olympic stadia both of which used predominently migrant workforce. . There is a proposed park-and-ride at Watchet with a new link road to be built through farm land, which will be a blight on the countryside around that area and will also cause congestion. . I would also suggest that with the volume of migrant workers coming to our community for up to 8 years, will cause an enormous strain on hospitals, police, doctors etc. I hope the Council will take this into consideration. . Along with this influx of workers who will be predominently male, there will be the issue of prostitution, overcrowding at pubs and clubs frequented by locals leading to drunken brawls and disruption of the peace. To sum up, I don't want Hinckley Point at all - let alone C. I consider it to be a danger to life, especially with it's particular location. It will destroy tourism and the countryside. I would urge the Council to think of the residents of the surrounding areas and not how much money it will make for the big boys. The residents will be here picking up the pieces after the development is complete. Someone must consider the broader picture. . ."

Georgina Bryant
"As a resident of Cannington I believe that our village will suffer greatly unless a designated northern bypass to Hinkley from Junction 25 is built prior to any further building work at the power station. The current level of traffic at certain times along the High Street in Cannington is invasive and becoming intolerable for residents. The safety of the many students who attend the college as well as the local residents concerns me a great deal. This is before the proposed increase in traffic if planning permission is granted for HP. Bridgwater is already heavily congested and the town can no longer cope with the ever increasing number of vehicles travelling through towards the A39."

G H Gibson
"1. I'm all in favour of Hinkley Point C 2. Having lived at the top of Rodway for the last 42 years I know what the traffic was like when Hinkley B was being built. It was chaos. From 0630 to 0830---1600 to 1800 it could take up to 15 mins. to cross the road. 3. I have had dealings with 25 accidents both as a member of the local Police and a member of the public, all within 150 yards of the top of the hill. I have been the victim of two accidents where vehicles have run into the back of my vehicle whilst I have been turning into my property which within 100 yds. of the top of the hill. Two weeks ago a young female student was knocked down crossing the road outside my house, and so it goes on. 4. The road through the village was, and is NOT up to taking the volume of traffic now. 5. Traffic trying to get onto the A39 from the village is bad enough let alone when HP is changing shifts, and is made even worst when the holliday period starts in the summer. Then there is the traffic going to the Grain store, this wasn't an issue when Hinkley A and B where being built. Cannington has grown in size and population over the the last twenty years, with a large housing estate on the start of the village. Many young children going to the local school have to walk and cross the road as do many elderly folks going about there day to day business. The noise and dust that vehicles cause us now is bad enough, whats it going to be like when all the construction traffic starts. Cannington needs a by-pass NOW before work starts to get the traffic around Bridgwater and the village, but better still a road direct from the A39/38 and the Motorway to Hinkley Point, lets face it C station will be followed by a D station in years to come. Save money and put a road in now. A road direct to the HP from A39/38 and Motorway would not cause the problems that we are seeing now and times to come. 6.Bridgwater and Cannington will become grid locked without a by-pass."

Joanne Lee
"I feel that by not agreeing to put in a bypass, it is an intrusion into the lives of the local residents, businesses and tourism. I am extremely worried about the level of traffic that will affect the area and all who live, work and enjoy it. I feel that there should be a bypass provided to take the level of traffic away from the villages to the north of Bridgwater/Cannington. This is the most logical solution and I do not beleive that work should begin until this has been achieved. The A39 is a very busy road anyway and I am very concerned that emergency vehicles will not be able to reach people in time and get them help if they need it. Also, lots of people use the A39 to get to West Somerset for days out and holidays - they will most certainly be put off if they hear about the traffic situation that will be caused should a bypass not be put in place."

S J Wills
"I am concerned about theunacceptable volume of traffic proposed to pass through Bridgwater and Cannington. I would like a bridge built across the river Parrett from M5 junction 23 at Dunball to the site of the proposed power station so that construction traffic does not have to pass through Bridgwater and Cannington."

David Jesse
"I believe that it is grossly irresponsible to be embarking on a nuclear new build programme in the UK"

David Phelan-Player
"I live in Glastonbury, and thereby believe I fall under the category of "any other land which you believe will or might be affected by this application". Should the Hinkley Point C reactor be built, then in the event of a disaster in the same magnitude as that seen at Fukoshima, my home would likely be subject to evacuation, or worse. While it may be argued that similar risks already exist with the current reactors, that does not negate the objection to continuing that risk once the existing reactors have been decommissioned. While the likelihood of an incident is low, the impact of an incident is very high, and I object to myself and my family being further exposed to that risk."

P Sturdy
"I am concerned about the level of traffic planned and its impact on the area and its residents, businesses and tourism."

Richard Chisnall
"i am very unhappy about the presence of a nuclear power plant so close to where i live. it is clear that when accidents happen - as in Fukushima in Japan, and Chernobly - the consequences are grave for a very wide area surrounding the plant additionally, even though the nuclear industry has had 60 years to solve the issue of waste, there is still no viable solution. bearing in mind that this waste is hazardous for millenia, i cannot see how any assurances given as to its safety can be valid"

Stuart Packer
"I absolutely disagree with upgrading to a 'better' Nuclear Program at Hinckley Point. Because of the half-life situation with nuclear fuel, there will always be a risk associated with it. There will always be a potential danger of some kind at any time in the future. In my opinion, it is immature to believe otherwise. We have so much 'free' energy from wind, sun and wave to call upon, why take the risk with people's health and lives?"

S C Largent
"Inadequate measures proposed to mitigate the impact of planned huge traffic increase, in particular HGVs, through Cannington. Road impovements, and in particular the proposed Western bypass need to be implemented prior to any significent traffic increases due to Hinkley C site preparation and development. Modifications (traffic pinch point) currently proposed for Cannington main road will damage local shops viablity, including the grocer and post office. These modifications would be redundant on completionof the proposed Western bypass."

Marion van Eupen
"I strongly object to keeping Hinkley Point open and even expanding it. I live in Glastonbury and from the Tor we can see Hinkley Point, so it's very close to us. When a tsunami hit the west coast of Somerset years ago, the water went upto Glastonbury. What happened in Japan with the Nuclear station there, could happen here again. With the rising waters and the turmoil in the earth lately it's not unlikely to happen sometime and there is a 100 year risk in this area and nuclear waste storage will be kept on site for at least 160 years. This and the transport of Nuclear and other material over the Somerset roads, makes me object against these plans!"

Laura Rice
"Worry about the level of traffic planned and its impact on the area and it's residents, businesses and tourism."

Lyn Largent
"Impact of traffic increases through Cannington, in particular from HGVs. Also additional noise and polution from the additional traffiic. The proposed Western Bypass should be completed prior to the traffic increases due to work on Hinkley C. Emergency vehicle access to and from Cannington will be badly affected by the increase of traffic in the general vicinity."

Steve Radford
"I am opposed to the building of Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station on several grounds. I believe that there are risks involved in using nuclear power that outweigh any benefit. Apart from the disasterous possibilities of accident already being enacted at Fukushima and Chernobyl, there is also a danger of terrorist action. Any economic advantages of cheap energy are outweighed by the cost of looking after the radioactive waste, a cost which cannot be calculated as it is a cost which will have to be borne for generations beyond any currently viable economic prediction. Any council which takes these risks has to ask if it really has the long term benefit of the local area in mind."

John Robins
"I am strongly in favour of the building of Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station. New stations are urgently needed as the older stations are taken out of service. The Station will be Carbon Friendly and provide much needed well paid employment for the area during the build and also when fully operational. Without it we will have a shortfall of Electricity with the possibility of Power Cuts. Renewables can provide a certain amount of energy but they have low load factors and will require backup stations. A mix of generating sources is therefore required. Having worked for many years ( before retiring) at several nuclear stations including Hinkley Point B Power Station I am well aware of the Nuclear Industries high safety standards which are monitored by the Independent Nuclear Inspectorate. Whilst there is bound to be some disruption to traffic etc during the build, EDF's plans should keep this to a minimum.The building of an onsite jetty will help to keep heavy traffic to a minimum by bringing in loads by sea"

Dearbhaile Bradley
"In the context of the nuclear accident at Fukishima and the threatened nuclear accident in America last year to build another Nuclear reactor at Hinkley is pure insanity. We are entering a phase of increasing instability of weather systems due to factors such as the melting of the polar icecaps. Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. This is not a remote or theoretical possibility. In fact in 1607 exactly such a tidal wave occurred. Also the plan for protecting the people of Somerset, Devon and South Wales from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events, is inadequate and negligent. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resources that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. The proposal for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility is also inadequate. The storage of such waste on-site exposes the population to the risk of contamination. There is evidence to show that the people of Burnham-on-Sea are suffering from higher rates of cancer and other illnesses associated with radiation poisoning so clearly the storage of waste on-site is already problematic. It is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to contain such toxic material which may not be the case."

Mrs Angela Partridge
"Our major concerns are regarding the proposed Industrial site at Combwich, which is larger than Combwich. The proposal is to use Combwich as a freight terminal to remove transport from the road system. This has been ill conceived as to raise the 80 acre site by 1M above datum will involve an estimated 60,000 lorry deliveries thus negating any gain. The noise and disruption to the rural village are also unacceptable. We have no objection to very large loads using Combwich as they currently do. The build will also use every high tide and prevent local use of the pill The Road from Combwich and also from Bridgwater is also unsuitable for the modern transport that will be using it. The road to Hinkley was designed for “A” Station when Lorries were a fraction of the size. The Cannington bypass is a good example of the size and quality of road needed from Bridgwater to Hinkley to make it safe for all road users, not just those on four wheels. Some heavy work has already commenced both at Hinkley and for the Steart project, when Lorries currently pass there is only just room and the verges are already being eroded. Moped riders, cyclists and horse riders are most at risk. There have already been incidents involving lorries and it will only be a matter of time before one is killed by the Lorries using this road. It will become much worse once the main build starts. Finally no though appears to have been given to how people will get out of small villages that adjoin the Hinkley point road, when traffic becomes almost constant. We need to make it clear we are not against Nuclear new build, but a safe and considerate infrastructure needs to be put in place first. Bear in mind This road will be used for 50+ years for the new build and decommissioning of B stn and ultimately C stn. Thus getting it right now is a small price to pay."

Mr John Joseph Devitt
"Road traffic management plans are insufficient to deal with the problems that the extra burden of construction traffic will create. Recently, a serious RTA on Taunton road in Bridgwater created chaos as did the recent spate of roadworks. Bridgwater at peak hour is already frustrating enough. The new plans would only add to the current difficulties resulting in delays to the construction, a huge amount of wasted fuel by vehicles stuck in traffic jams along with the associated polution. Plans to shore up the junction at the monument on Cannington are not a good idea. At this junction also is the entrance to Bridgwater College Cannington Centre which together with the Post Office and Spars shop is already very congested and very narrow. Long and heavy vehicles should never be allowed to use this junction on health and safety issues alone. As it is a present, lorries negotiating this junction often have to use the other side of the road in front of oncoming traffic. It is too dangerous now, lets not make it worse. The Cannington bypass must be built before the construction traffic gets here. By far the safest and most convenient solution for the people of Bridgwater and the neighbouring villages and indeed for the construction workers themselves would be to build the suggested bypass from Dunball to Hinkley."

Nicholas W Kroner
"I am opposed to any on-site campus housing more than 100 (say) essential workers as the number of occupants drawf the local community. As I live very close by I am very strongly opposed to 24 hour working. I think all buses conveying workers to and from the site should only use the A39 to Cannington and then the Hinkley Road and NOT come through Stringston and/or Stogursey."

Maurice Howard
"With the almost certain approval of the EDF, and associated companies, application to construct Hinkley Point C the expected traffic problems this will entail need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Local press,Councils and numerous individuals have all made their views known strongly to EDF as to the expected chaos that will ensue if a direct road is not built from Junction 23 of the M5 to the site. Bridgwater is often gridlocked by accidents and roadworks and accidents on the A39 to Cannington and beyond frequently cause this road to be closed or severely disrupted. A further point that should be mentioned is that the Police Headquarters covering both Bridgwater and Taunton are due to move to Express Park which is close to Junction 23. Should an emergency occur during the build of Hinkly C at the site, or after completion, and Bridgwater is gridlocked Police would have extreme difficulty getting to the scene. A road from Junction 23 would overcome this. I thank you for your consideration to all of the objections you have, and will receive, to the solving of this immense expected problem. Maurice Howard - a Cannington resident"

Louise Somerville Williams
"Hinckley Objections - Louise Somerville Williams The proposed development of Hinckley C includes infrastructure of pylons or underground cables to transport electricity to Bristol and environs who are the main designated consumers of Hinckley c power. It is ineffective and expensive to transport electricity. Alongside energy loss is the impact on landscape, destruction of natural habitats and denigration of areas of outstanding natural beauty. Research has shown clusters of childhood leukaemia & breast cancer cases increase around the area of the existing nuclear site at Hinckley. Having a “shoot to kill” policy on British soil is against British legislation and a breach of human rights. The fact that EDF employ mainly French people demonstrates a failure to comply with British and European employment equalities legislation. The danger of taking 3 hours to respond to a flooding incident is inherently unsafe. The disposal of nuclear waste is creating a toxic legacy for generations to come. Somerset supports a busy quarrying industry, our roads and local infrastructure are already under heavy use and although I welcome the local employment and benefits to the economy from existing industry I am concerned that any additional burden on our roads and local services would cost the Somerset taxpayer heavily. The building of Hinckley C, the energy transport infrastructure and the on-going maintenance would overwhelm our small lanes and communities and cause untold damage to our A roads which are already struggling to cope with the existing industries in our County. For those who haven’t visited the site, the lanes around Hinckley are tiny."

Geoff Gadie
"I am fully in favour of the project as it will bring much needed employment for the young people of this struggling area. They also have plans to improve local roads etc which the County cannot afford & which will be a legacy for the future."

Victoria Whelan
"We need to learn from the disaster of Japan and not proceed with this form of energy generation particularly when there is clean viable energy available. e.g. www.tradewindturbines.com and http://www.thrivemovement.com/ We need to act not from our selfish needs to endlessly commune but consider our children's future, and put that at the centre of any discussion."

Robert Adcock
"We are very concerned that without a suitable bypass from Bridgwater to Hinkley Point there will be excessive congestion on the road network to Cannington (A39). This will adversely affect our Turf, Landscaping and Garden Maintenance businesses which will be caught up in these significant delays, thereby reducing the amount of work we can undertake and hence reducing our profitability and ultimately viability."

Mary A. Mahoney
"Before EDF start work at Hinkley Point, EDF should provide a route from the M5 Junction 23 by building a road across from Dunball straight to Hinkley Point thus avoiding using the A38. This road is a nightmare at the best of times the slightest accident and there are hold ups forever, and you cannot get out of the village."

Michael Ritson
"Re: Transport Proposals for Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Build Project I write to draw your attention to my serious concerns with regard to the adequacy of transport solutions proposed by the project promoter, EDF. I am clear that the quality and quantity of highways infrastructure, plus other measures, are not of a sufficient scale and quality to solve the impacts that will be generated by this project. My particular concerns are with the dangers of not finding the correct solution to the transport impact of this major, national infrastructure project. Without a more comprehensive approach the negative impacts of this project on local communities and individuals, their quality of life, the tourism industry, and existing businesses, will be severe! I am acutely aware of the constraints of the current road network with regard to existing safety concerns and are deeply concerned and worried about the proposed increase in freight and bus traffic in rural communities, as well as in Bridgwater. At the moment over 900 movements a day relating to this project are being proposed and I have a real fear that this could further increase the number of accidents locally, particularly as some of them are through areas that are already accident blackspots. In addition, these proposals are now likely to trigger and exceed critical thresholds in the current transport network resulting in disproportionate increases in congestion and delay. This will reduce investor confidence and impede not only economic growth but also regeneration plans. As demonstrated recently by a most tragic accident on the M5 this whole region became gridlocked with traffic implications not only for Bridgwater and the surrounding villages, but for Somerset and the South West as a whole. Long term consequences for the social and economic future for this part of Somerset would be stark. Without a more robust approach to Traffic Management re EDF’s application there will be major ramifications for the successful delivery of the Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Build Project itself. Short term thinking and cost controls may actually in the long term create project delay and increased cost, as proposed solutions prove unworkable in practice. There is an overwhelming view locally that one of the best solutions to some of the problems would be the construction of a ‘Bridgwater Northern Bypass’, but EDF claim that the Government will not allow them to do this. My understanding from talking to your predecessor is that the Government would have little objection providing that EDF foot the bill for it. I urge you and colleagues across Government to reflect on the genuine concerns of local residents, Parish Councils and businesses and to assist those involved such that correct solutions are reached to protect local communities facing these negative impacts of major infrastructure projects. Yours sincerely Cllr. Michael Ritson."

Mr J Ashworth
"I disagree with the area proposed for the laydown area in Combwich. This is far too large and will have a visual, enviromental and noise impact on the village which is smaller than the proposed laydown area. Also it is in a flood risk area and will have a impact on local housing. EDF are proposing to increase the traffic on the road by 90,000 vehicles to build the laydown area. This will have a major impact on this small community. The working hours are excessive and will cause noise pollution seven days a week including Sundays and bank holidays. This is a preposed to happen on a area of green fields, which once it is destroyed will be lost for ever, so will have an inpact on generations to come. It will change life in our peaceful village"

Lynne Morgan
"I live within the exclusion zone pertaining to this development and totally oppose its expansion."

John Thompson
"My concerns about the application to build Hinckley Point C are as follows: 1) I have concerns that the proposed road system coupled with the natural geography of the area have the potential for serious loss of life in case of emergency. That stretch of A39 is already dangerous and there is serious potential for road accidents involving nuclear waste as well as the enormous amount of construction traffic. In addition should there be an emergency at the plant, evacuation of the area would be very slow. Other than cost, there seems to be no argumet for not building a North Bridgwater bypass 2) I feel the influx of traffic and the sheer weight of numbers of people living in/ passing through Cannington on a a daily basis will seriously impact detrimentally on the quality of life of the residents. 3) I feel the impact of the proposed planning application will have a serious negative effect on tourism within the area"

James Lloyd
"I own a listed house on the High Street and have been informed that the increase of large heavy traffic may cause damage to this property which was built in 1710. Thgis property covers a large area of the High Street with a listed stone wall."

Mrs Pauline Pope
"1. I am against this project on the grounds of lack of road infrastructure to the proposed plant using only the A39 as it implies health & safety issues for the people of Bridgwater, Cannington and all the surrounding villages thereby it is not fit for purpose. 2. A park & ride facility at Cannington will increase enormously traffic using the A39 "RedRoute" which is the only access in and out of Cannington and other surrounding villages. There appears to be is no necessity yet another park & ride facility within approx. 3 miles of the two proposed in Bridgwater. 3. Flooding is a severe risk in this low lying area of Somerset, which could possibly be eleviated if a Bridgwater Northern Bypass incorporating a flood barrier was built from Junction 23 to the North of Cannnington directly to Hinkley Point. 4. A Northern Bridgwater Bypass would also give a secondary access/exit to this major nuclear plant and a means of securely removing spent fuel in the future. It would also allow emergency vehicles fast access to this vast new Nuclear Plant should a major incident occur, whilst allowing access/exit to the general public via the A39 which otherwise will become just a car park."

Serena Roney-Dougal
"(Infrastructure Planning Commission) submission: Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforeseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area ( one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset, Devon and South Wales, including my family and friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for it's eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforeseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

Health Protection Agency
"The HPA’s comments are restricted to public health impacts relating to exposure to chemicals and radiation. The HPA response is based on the information contained within the Health Impact Assessment and the following sections of the Environmental Statement, which are related to the HPA’s remit: emissions to air; emissions to water; accidents; non-ionising radiation; ionising radiation. Based on the information that is provided in the application, the HPA does not consider that Hinkley Point C and its associated development are likely to lead to significant public health impacts provided that the management plans and mitigation measures identified in the ES are implemented during construction and operation of the power plant and associated developments. There are however, two issues where the HPA would expect the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) to seek further clarification from the developer. These points are outlined below and will be expounded in a subsequent detailed response at such point as the HPA is asked to submit further detailed comments by the IPC. The HPA reserves the right to add additional points to the detailed response. Regarding electromagnetic fields HPA’s advice is summarised in the annex of the following document: http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1284473361539. The applicant considers this advice in Appendix 4 of the Health Impact Assessment (Document 8.4). It should be mentioned that the ICNIRP electric field reference levels also afford protection from the painful effects of microshocks. This can be added as a footnote in Table A4.2 together with a reference to the section on direct and indirect effects in the DECC 2011a Code of Practice. The HPA welcomes the inclusion of dispersion modelling to assess the air quality impacts associated with traffic emissions during both the construction phase and early operational phase of the proposed application. Whilst the scheme is likely to only have a minor negative impact on air quality in the area, the HPA would welcome confirmation that in case of alteration of planned works, air quality impacts would be reassessed by the promoter."

Mr. Duncan Peaster
"I feel that the main roads A38 and A39 and local C class roads are not suitable for such a huge project like this. The A38 and A39 are only single carriageways and Bridgwater already suffers with grid lock. Bridgwater has recently had major industrial buildings built on the A38 in to the town and cannot sustain even more traffic. The A39 west of Bridgwater has had several fatal road traffic accidents recently and total gridlock has occured due this being the only road that serves the out lying community. I am fully supportive of the new power station ONLY if EDF build the Northern bypass."

Mrs Jean Cox
"Having just read that EDF are in financial turmoil over similar projects to Hinckley C in France and Finland, can it be right to allow the despoiling of our beautiful countryside, with another nuclear power station which may never be completed? Is this a responsible action? Another irresponsibility seems to me to be the disposal of radioactive waste which we leave future generations to inherit."

Cllr Michael Lerry
"The proposed development of Hinkley C will bring certain benefits to Bridgwater Town, such as work, employment opportunities, training, and economic growth. The proposal will also allow Bridgwater Town to develop as an area of excellence for the Green Economy. My main concerns relate to the Local Impact of the development, which could have a detrimental impact on Bridgwater Town. My main concerns are as follows: Transport and Road Infrastructure 1 Lack of NATA /Webtag methodology as stipulated in the Department of Transport Guidance for the assessment of "online" road improvements proposed by EDF and a Northern By-pass. 2 Increased road congestion for Bridgwater Town and surrounding area, due to increase in road traffic and labour force. Housing 1 The building of Hostel on the former Innovia site, as this will not provide a lasting legacy for accommodation and it is not a permanent sustainable solution. The proposed Hostel on the former Innovia site is too close to others Hostels on the Bridgwater College site. This will add to traffic congestion and a concentration temporary workforce in one area of the Town. 2 The influx of a large permanent and temporary workforce will have an impact on the capacity , affordability and accessibility to owner occupied and private rented housing stock. The increase in demand for housing will increase homelessness and distort the housing market. Leisure access and amenity 1 Accelerated direct loss of community facilities and inadequate replacement. Inability of existing facilities to cope with the additional demand and pressure, especially night time economy. Reduced access for local people to existing facilities, which will cause ill feeling and disturbance with the temporary workforce and local people. Economic development 1 Local businesses losing labour force to Hinkley Point C. and finding it difficult to replace staff. 2 Transport solutions proposed by EDF not relating to other economic development in Bridgwater."

Mark Verncombe
"I live in the village of combwich and the developement outlined is not suitable"

Donella Houser
"I disagree with the application because: It does not solve the problem of storage of nuclear waste The process has been undemocratic - lack of comsultation and debate with Somerset people There is a risk to the facility because of flooding The effect of the project on Somerset's roads will effect residents and tourism Storage of nuclear waste contaminates the land Low level radation emitted is a health risk Jobs promise - it has been proved that EDF brings in foreign workers The funds would be better spent on other, green, methods of providing energy"

Davina Williams
"I am extremely concerned about traffic movements, and consider that a comprehensive road transport system should be in place before buiding commences."

Nick Jones
"Although not against the proposed power station in principle, however as a resident of the village of Cannington I have real concerns regarding the impact of the project both during construction and post completion. *The proposed Western relief road MUST be constructed before the main construction begins - without this the village of Cannington will become an extremely dangerous place with potentially hundreds of heavy vehicle movements through the village per day. I am worried about my young son who plays in the village and crosses the already busy roads. In addition there is the evironmental impact of all this traffic plus massive wear and tear to the roads. *The above issues will remain post constuction also if the relief road is not built - there will be thousands of workers travelling back and forth each morning and evening. Cannington roads are simply not suired for this volume of traffic - the location of the local primary school being particularly vulnerable as it's entrance is onto a very narrow stretch of the main road."

Heidi Boyd
"As a regular visitor to family in the area my concern is the traffic problems that will be created with all the additional traffic to and from Hinkley. It is difficult enough at present with delays not at all uncommon. With only a single road to Hinkley from Bridgwater I feel that the introduction of the EDF traffic will immensely increase these problems within the area, . Apart from the personal difficulties to be created, a second route as has been suggested, directly from Bridgwater to Hinkley, should be introduced for safety reasons. This is required to cater for both traffic accidents and a possible nuclear accident happening at Hinkley."

Stogursey Parish Council
"The proposed development site is within the boundaries of Stogursey Parish. The Parish Council therefore represents the people who will be most affected by the proposed development. We have copied IPC with our responses to the Stage 1, 2 & 2a Consultations. We are not against Nuclear Power, we understand the significance of NPS-1 & -6, and we are very aware of the long term economic benefits to the wider area of the power station. Our concerns are largely to do with the levels of disruption caused by the long construction period, and the lack of adequate mitigation for local people who will not necessarily benefit from the economic improvements. Our concerns are: 1. Traffic: The volume of traffic on the C182 at all hours, with inadequate or no improvements to junctions with local roads. Effect of construction traffic on locals going about their daily lives The route HGVs and workers buses will take from the west, and the need to avoid unsuitable country lanes Concern about local gridlock in the event of an on-site or off-site emergency, or flooding 2. Noise, Dust and Light Pollution: Disruption from noise generated, and particularly that caused by night time and weekend working. Locals unable to enjoy their gardens or the local area Effect of dust on residents, due to local high winds Concern on effect of construction lighting on local houses 3. Accommodation Campus: Campus resolutely opposed by local residents, and no justification has been provided Physical size and visual impact of campus, and inadequate landscaping Traffic generated by hostel residents and service vehicles Noise and light pollution to nearby houses Lack of social integration – proposed sharing of football pitch ludicrously inadequate response Law and order problems caused locally by 510 workers swamping local facilities 4. Health: Loss of community fabric and way of life, leading to health and social cohesion issues Impact on health from the stress of the construction work and traffic Effect of migrant workers living in local accommodation swamping local health facilities 5. Recreation and Amenities: Loss of landscape and PRoWs with inadequate compensatory new planting and paths Timing of restoration of construction site area – need for phased provision 6. Lack of adequacy of Obligations and Requirements proposed by EDF: Financial compensation and practical mitigation measures proposed are entirely inadequate for the scale of the undertaking and subsequent local disruption Inadequate off-site landscaping proposals"

Nikola Wilson
"I am horrified that regardless of now the proven instability of Nuclear Power due to recent events in Japan, where even China and Germany are not now going to invest in 'old' technology but focus instead on 'renewables', that Somerset are still going to blindly go ahead drawn by the over egged promise of investment and jobs with no regard for the terrible consequences if things go wrong. I also find it distasteful that this company has been allowed to promise 'investment' in collages as it appears as a thinly disguised sweetener. The way that the article concerning the application has been represented in the Your Somerset publication already looks like a 'fete a compli' with the local councilors and application authorities onboard. I believe this process of public consultation just a formality. But I will be contacting my MP and also EDF to withdraw my custom. I will also encourage all my friends and associates to do the same."

Leonie Kearn
"The only way in to Hinkley Point from the M5 motorway is through the town of Bridgwater and villages. This is on single carriageways of the A39 and C182, a mixture of shopping, residential and country lanes. These roads are already heavily congested and the additional traffic as described by EDF will only increase delays with the risk of more accidents. This would greatly disrupt the lives of people living in the area and increase the risk of access to emergency services to both residents and Hinkley staff, particularly in the event of a nuclear incident at Hinkley."

Peter Evans
"Although not against the new power station per se. I am extremely concerned about the vastly increased traffic during the long construction period. Therefore until a new road is built to the north of Bridgwater direct to the proposed site I will be firmly against a new power station at Hinkley Point. The disruption to Bridgwater and the despoiling of our village of Cannington fills me with dread."

Sun Bird
"After researching the extent of the japan nuclear distaster and the cover up by the officials and media i am in no way happy to trust that such a problem could not happen here. i live within the area that would be effected and fear that i will have to move from the area. i understand that the waste will be held on the site!!! will there be sufficient facilities to last several hundred thousand years in order to contain it? the cost of decomissioning is so high that the true cost of hinkley b will be paid for by the british public in the end. there are alternatives including the bristol channel barrier which has been scrapped in favour of the nuclear option."

Alyson Black
"I disagree with the expansion of Hinckley Point Nuclear Power Station as the technology is too dangerous and the site for this technology is very vulnerable on the coast. Also there seems to be no way of disposing of nuclear waste and so it is not a legacy we would want to leave for our children."

Steve Berry
"I am not in objection to the building of Hincly C, but with out proper road infrastructure there will be increased heavy traffic which will increase the probability of serious accidents when crossing the road in the village. Noise will increase to intolerable levels from the high levels they are now. It is unreasonable to expect residents to tolerate this kind of risk without first upgrading roads and diverting the traffic around Cannington and residential areas."

Katharine Babington
"I am really unhappy about these proposed plans. It really is time for our government to take charge and stop the use of nuclear energy. It's unsafe, we only have to look at Japan to know that. It is socially irresponsible to allow the continued development of the nuclear industry in England. I object to this plan wholeheartedly...I cite the situation at Fukushima in Japan as evidence to support my objection."

Nicola Bell
"i do not want nuclear energy"

Arletta Hodge
"Considering recent The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, I think I would be unwise and dangerous to build a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point. Any problems with the plant would effect large, populated area, the position of the plant, means also that the water would spread the contamination even further. It is an area of outstanding beauty, and the plant is very close to Exmoor National Park. This in itself is a strange position for a nuclear plant. I am also very concern about the impact of this large development on the area, we already suffer from busy, congested roads. I think we research and invest in other sources of energy. Thank you Arletta Hodge"

Keith Lane
"I have lived on the main road through Cannington for 45 years I am most concerned that through-traffic will increase considerably I travel to Bridgwater and Taunton (Musgrove Park Hospital Beacon Centre) regularly Most concerned about future delays due to increased traffic congestion Any extension to Cannington Bypass must include a road block preventing access to the village via Rodway. Tourism will be severely damaged by increased traffic along A 39 A bypass North of Bridgwater from the Dunball motorway spur is essential Any park-and-ride facility or heavy vehicle and equipment storage must not be sited in the Parish"

Ted Cubitt
"My and many other peoples princible concern is traffic through Cannington and Bridgwater. I suggest that before any planning consent is given, the Western Bypass of Cannington be completed, or better still a new road from J23 M5 to the Hinkley Point west of Combwich. As a Govenor of Cannington CofE School I would like to point out that the entrance to school is in Brook Street, Cannington and has been for the last 100 years. EDF claim nether of these road schemes is economicaly viable. Do the lives of villagers and school children count for nothing."

David M Browning on behalf of Elizabeth Browning
"My property lies directly across from and approximately 50 yards from Combwich Wharf. We have lived here for the past 13 years during which time there have been several heavy loads brought by barge to the wharf. On every occasion there has been disturbance by noise from unloading, by lights being on through the night and by further noise from the barges' generator running through the night. As these shiploads have been few and far between, these disturbances were acceptable. I have grave concerns for the future however as follows: (i) Construction/alteration of Combwich Warf will ensure noise and light pollution over, I believe in excess of 12 months. (ii) Once wharf construction is completed we face large numbers of barges with exceptional loads coming into the wharf at frequent intervals. This will result in regular disturbances as mentioned in para 1. (iii) The proposed laydown facility to the south east of Combwich is first and foremostly being sited on a flood plain. Is this sensible I wonder? Assuming it will however go ahead this site will add to the noise and light pollution which villagers, including my family, will suffer. (iv) Construction traffic from the laydown facility and also from further abroad will mean heavily congested roads, roads which in fact were never constructed to take the perceived volume of traffic the Hinkley project will produce."

Dave Helliar
"I do not agree with the proposed building of Hinkley Point C. After the recent events in Japan, this country should not be building anymore Nuclear Power Stations & we should follow other countries which have decided to halt any further construction."

Mr C Bassett
"The new road from Cannington to the bottom of Rodway hill will pass close by my property. This will increase the noise level. Increase risk to my cats due to traffic. Also my property value could be reduced as my outlook will be on a large main roate with heavy traffic"

Mrs Jennifer Alexander
"Nether Stowey is a village some 5 miles from Cannington, on the A39 from Bridgwater to Minehead. There are major concerns within the community of Nether Stowey regarding the implications of the development of Hinkley Point Power Station, on the road infrastructure and traffic increase in the area. 1. Bridgwater is already a town which suffers from very heavy traffic conditions and which at times is totally grid-locked, particularly on the access roads to and from the two junctions with the M5 motorway. 2. Nether Stowey is on the A39, the only ‘A’ route from Bridgwater to West Somerset. This road every day of the week carries very heavy traffic, including huge lorries delivering to West Somerset, haulage vehicles carrying static caravans to holiday destinations, holiday traffic with large quantities of caravans etc., and general traffic from those living in the area. The planned associated development at Williton (West Somerset) of accommodation for workers at Hinkley Point and park and ride facilities will only add to the high volume of traffic on this highway. This major route can on many occasions be brought to a standstill for long periods following a vehicle accident while the police and ambulance try to deal with the incident and clear the road. The increase in traffic caused by the Hinkley Point traffic will only exacerbate these problems. 3. Nether Stowey is a village on the edge of the Quantock Hills, a designated AONB area, and is for this reason at the crossroads of various minor (single track on occasions) routes crossing the Quantocks. Some of the extra traffic caused by this development will inevitably try to avoid the congestion on the A39 and access the routes over the Quantocks, via Nether Stowey. These routes are not suitable for heavy traffic or large commercial vehicles, due to the steep incline and narrowness of these roads. The extra load on the access points to Nether Stowey will put huge pressure on the village infrastructure and its inhabitants. 4. If the current plan for the new Hinkley Point power station is set in motion, there is also a plan for an emergency exit route from Hinkley Point via a very narrow (single lane mostly) lane from Stogursey to Nether Stowey. This road will inevitably become hugely congested as workers from Hinkley Point seek to avoid the congestion on the A39 and cross via Nether Stowey to the ‘back roads’ to Taunton and the road network on the other side of the Quantocks. I am fearful of the impact the massive increase in road traffic will have on the people of Bridgwater and particularly the villages out towards West Somerset, over the long period of build time at Hinkley Point."

Adrian L Cutts
"My concerns are building a freight lay down facility on a flood plain when there are other sites available why not use the the main construction site. Wharf OPC has accepted the need of AILs to be brought to the wharf, but why is it necessary to have a goods wharf when a similar facility is to be built on the main site, The wharf is two min's walk from my house this will create a serious noise & light pollution when being constructed to my family & other people in the village. Residential Amenity The loss of tranquillity and the impact of noise,vibration,lighting & access issues concerning the wharf and footpaths on leisure activities Compensation compensation for those in properties most directly affected & also the village as a legacy for 10 + years of disruption & inconvenience. Transport/traffic The amount of traffic that will be using the Hinkley Point road ,and the impact on all the junctions Combwich & Otterhampton . The problems of getting through Cannington before the bypass is built & the horrendous traffic conditions back & forward to Bridgwater so the northern bypass should be built first EDFs own figures suggest there will be 1,000 to 2,000 vehicles a day will pass the end of the village . Emergency access If there's an accident between J23 M5 roundabout to Hinkley the whole place becomes gridlocked so how will emergency vehicles attend the casualties"

Anthony Vernon Phillips
"I agree with and support the building of Hinkley C. I disagree with the current proposals put forward regarding the infrastructure etc required to accomplish the build for the following reasons. Bridgwater town cannot cope with current traffic volumes let alone increases irrespective of suggested enhancements to existing roads and routes. Local villages and hamlets on the ten mile stretch will be unnecessarily devasted by 24/7 traffic which will utilise rural routes totally unsuitable for the types and volumes of traffic predicted. The concept of park and ride facilities located in some villages will also lead to 24/7 use, light and noise polution in these rural areas. There is a proposed creation of a lagoon/tidal flats incorporating sea defences alongside the Hinkley C site. Surely this is an oportunity for all relevant bodies, authorities and agents(environment, highways, local authorities and EDF etc) to devise a far superior plan which would take a new road from the Dumballs roundabout off the M5 out over the River Parrott and utilise the proposed tidal lagoon sea defences as part of the route out towards the already existing sea defences and concrete road that follow the coastline to Hinkley A and B. The crossing point could be further enhanced by building a tidal barrage rather than a bridge, maybe EDF would support the build as part of their green energy target and the local authorities support it as it would turn the town of Bridgwater into a water tourists mecca with miles of non tidal river coupled with the existing canal. By following the above proposal the improved mooring facility at Combwich"

Mag Richards
"I do not accept that a compelling case has been made for the compulsory purchase of the land required and I firmly believe that the proposal is not in the public interest. The economic and environmental arguements made in the " Statement of Reasons" do not stack-up and are not sustainable both from a historical and future perspective. 1. The contention (P18) " the relatively low generation costs of nuclear power can place downward pressure on the L/T costs of electricty" is pure conjecture, ignores key issues around waste management and decommissioning and is highly contentious. 2. The implication that this programme will be available significantly earlier than 2025 to help meet targets is not borne out historically. The industry has a long history of construction over-runs , hidden costs and delays due to circumstances beyond its control."

Susan Adams
"Dear Sirs, I am writing to let it be known that I absolutely disagree with the proposed plans to develop Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station. In light of the recent catastrophe in Japan, it seems highly irresponsible and naive to believe that a similar catastrophe could not happen here. Nuclear Power is dangerous to human health. There are alternative source of energy. There is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset, Devon and South Wales, including my family and friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for its eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment. I hope my views are counted and understood to be representative of those who are unable to or who havent spoken up about this. Please think about the impact upon the local environemt and th subsequent risks for ourselves, our children and future generations. Think about Chernobyl, Fukushima and understand that this is a very serious matter. Yours Sincerely"

Susie Matthewson
"I strongly object to Hinckley C for the following reasons: 1. The true cost to the country of nuclear power is not represented in the merely the cost of building these plants. The decommissioning and storage of waste fuel for many generations increases the financial costs exponentially over the years and therefore I do not believe building Hinckley C is a financially wise option. 2. The recent nuclear accident at Fukushima has highlighted the dangers inherent in leakages and accidents at nuclear plants. The mitigation in Japan is vast and unknown as yet. A very large area of a populous country became uninhabitable because of this accident. Unlikely as it is, a nuclear accident would have disastrous consequences to this country. 3. Hinckley is situated next to Severn Estuary which many believe is likely to be affected by rising sea levels due to climate change. There is not enough evidence that his will not happen. Inundation of the existing plant would be serious enough, but building another compound this problem. I have seen no evidence that this factor has even been considered in the desire to build a new plant, as waste is still to be stored on site. This causes me grave concern."

Sally Tuffin
"I object to the Hinkley C proposals for the following reasons: I do not think the project has adequate provision for dealing with nuclear waste - I think it is folly and arrogance to continue to produce nuclear waste products when no mechanism exists for making them safe; I do not think the benefits fo nuclear energy outweigh the costs - or the risk to local population at all times and to the wider nation or even nations should there be an accident - the nuclear advocates cannot guarantee there will not be another Chernobyl or Fukushima - It would be a catastrophe if Hinkley joined that tragic list; I do not agree that the local are will benefit in the ways listed in the proposals and I think they will bear greater costs; I believe nuclear power is folly and it is a sin to bequeath a nuclear future to our children and all the poison that entails."

Llanos Nunez
"Hickley III should not be built because it will affect the land and the community aroud the land and it will have: Effects of construction traffic - bringing, noise polution and annoyance to the community Effects on landscape and the local environment - the land will have to be trnsformed killing local wildlife and affecting the environment Lack of economic benefit - it will bring little benefit to the local community, creating only few local jobs. Effect on local services - the locals ervice will be affected bringing problems to the community Lack of adequate emergency planning - Having a nuclear station on your doorstep will always be dangerous (it has been seen in many occassions alrady) so the lack of emergy planning might have dramatic consecuences for the locals."

Sally Owen
"I am very concerned about the risks entailed in nuclear power stations, both in their operation and in the transport of the fresh and spent fuel. I consider the use of energy produced from sun water wind and anaerobic digestion to be the sensible direction for the future in conjunction with energy saving. Nuclear power is outmoded and unacceptably dangerous, and this proposed station is a foolish leap in the dark. Especially in the location. It is simply unacceptable in this time of cutbacks to take risks like these. The consequences of an accident at this plant and the disposal of spent fuel are problems we do not have an adequate solution for, and cant afford if we did. Fukoshima demonstrated how we underestimate the risks this technology represents, - Chernobyl, so far away, impacted on the Welsh mountain sheep farmers for decades. Far far better to emulate the Germans and to attract innovation in the new technologies to Wales. It is the new growth area and clean, and if we persist in this dangerous nonsense we will be left damaged and far behind."

Mr DA Northam
"Major concern re road access to Hinkley site through Bridgwater and Cannington. Road access from Dunball off the M5 motorway direct to Hinkley Point seems appropriate. This would relieve severe congestion in Bridgwater and surrounding villages particularly Cannington."

Mrs Phipps
"A BYPASS SHOULD BE BUILT BEFORE ANY WORK IS STARTED.WE HAVE ENOUGH HEAVY TRAFFIC ALREADY COMING THROUGH THE VILLAGE .THE VILLAGE HAS NARROW PAVEMENTS AND TIGHT BENDS WHICH WILL NOT TAKE LONG WIDE HEAVY LORRIES.WE ALSO HAVE TO CONCIDER THE RESIDENTS AND ALSO STUDENTS WHO GO TO THE SCHOOL AND COLLAGE"

Robin Phipps
"The bypass of cannington must be finished before thepower station is started .as agreed at a public inquiry in 1989.One reason for this was the volume of traffic could close the village school.also cannigton had been used when building A&B.The enquirey found that when the C. is under contruction cannington was not to be affected."

Elinor Parker
"I am very concerned about the effect on Combwich of the proposed freight laydown area and the associated vehicle movements. The village is currently a pleasant, quiet and tranquil place and the noise and disruption of such major works will adversely affect our quality of life. I believe the main construction site is much more suitable for the freight laydown and would be less costly. The wharf at the main construction site could also be used instead of the village wharf, to reduce the impact on Combwich. Please take my views into consideration. Elinor Parker"

Christine Martin
"I wish to comment on the road infrastructure concerning the Hinkley Point development. Whilst many local people may welcome the opportunities, such as job prospects and the rejuvenation of Bridgwater, that a new power station will bring, these positive outcomes will be jeopardised by the lack of a workable road network. I have studied carefully the proposed road improvements but I, along with many local people, feel that they are superficial and do not address the problem which will occur due to the obvious huge increase in traffic. The much needed gains to the town of Bridgwater would be seriously undermined as propsective visitors would go elsewhere to avoid the traffic congestion; it is already extremely congested, especially at peak times. I feel that in another few years we would be in the position of 'I told you so' as further gridlock ensues; a new bridge over the River Parrett has to be a prerequisite of any future development regarding Hinkley Point development. It may seem a costly option now, (although in the overall scheme of the total expenditure, it is but a drop in the ocean) but EDF has to bite the bullet and agree to this eminently sensible solution in order to secure the future of this area. Local people, who know the area well and who have lived here for many years, know that the above solution is a must. I ask that those involved in this planning decision actually listen carefully to their views; views about the pros and cons of nuclear power is one issue but the need for a workable local infrastructure is an issue which will affect all those who work and live in the Bridgwater area."

Rev H.P.Barkham
"I am opposed to the building a new nuclear power statiion at Hinkley. It is unnecessary because there are alternatives in the form of wind, wave and solar power. The building would do great damage to the local area. It would cause traffic congestion. The danger of disposing of the waste material created is manifold."

Lindy Booth
"As a resident of Bridgwater, I’m very concerned about the development of Hinkley C and the effect it will have on the local environment. As a regular walker in the countryside around Cannington, I am already dismayed at the destruction of local habitat and landscape and am worried about further environmental impact. Living just off the Taunton Road, I am also concerned about a greater amount of construction traffic along a number of routes where there is already regular congestion. As someone who runs a local business, I am worried too, about the effect that this will have on our already fragile enterprise. The impact on local infrastructure and services with such a huge influx of new workers is of concern to me as well and I believe it will disadvantage and make life much more difficult for a lot of people – particularly those who are disadvantaged/vulnerable - already living in this area. Furthermore, I do not believe that the economic benefit so far promised by EDF and its partners anywhere near outweighs the negative local impacts that Hinkley C will have and I just do not believe that any of the benefits outlined so far will help the area in the longer-term. They are just not sustainable without massive extra investment over the long term! Finally, from what I’ve seen so far, I don’t believe that the emergency planning so far proposed is anywhere near adequate – taking into account what has happened at Fukishima, ‘scares’ at other nuclear installations and potential future threats that are extremely difficult to forecast. While I know that the ‘nuclear argument’ isn’t within the scope of this consultation, I do not believe that it holds the answers for future fuel scarcity because it is only a short-term solution and not sustainable – not to mention the very important issues of disposing of nuclear waste which are likely to pose a big threat to an unknown number of other national and global environments."

Gerald Alexander
"1. There is a high level of concern amongst those living in the villages to the West of Bridgwater and out towards West Somerset regarding the plans of EDF for the development of nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point. 2. The main town for all traffic through to the Hinkley Point site will be Bridgwater, which already has very heavy traffic and at times can come to a complete standstill, particularly when there is an accident on the M5 motorway and traffic attempts to ‘by-pass’ the incident and travel through Bridgwater. 3. As a resident of Nether Stowey I am particularly concerned regarding the inevitable massive increase in traffic on the A39 from Bridgwater to West Somerset. 4. Nether Stowey is on the A39 some 5 miles from Cannington, a village also to be greatly affected by this development. The A39 is the only ‘A’ grade road from Bridgwater to the West Somerset area. This road already suffers from a high volume of traffic, huge quantities of very large lorries and transporters as well as holiday and local traffic. 5. The A39 has very few places where overtaking is possible so when accidents occur, this main route is completely blocked for long periods of time while the emergency services deal with the situation. This results in chaos while drivers seek to avoid the blockage by using small lanes to find alternative routes. 6. There are also plans by EDF to use a very narrow winding lane as an emergency route for workers from Hinkley Point. This lane (Stogursey Lane) comes out onto the A39 at Nether Stowey which is in effect a ‘crossroads’ for the A39 and minor roads up to and over the Quantock Hills. 7. It is inevitable that workers from Hinkley Point will use Nether Stowey and the roads over the Quantock Hills to avoid the congestion on the A39. The Quantock Hills have only roads suitable for light use and in many places are single track only. A large increase in such traffic would cause harm to Nether Stowey as the through route and also to the Quantock Hills (designated as an AONB). It is my belief that this development will cause immense harm to not only Nether Stowey, but all the villages west of Bridgwater and out towards West Somerset. The current plans suggested by EDF will not in any real way deal with the traffic problems that will arise over the period of development of the new Hinkley Point Reactors and will cause immense difficulties and damage to these areas."

Ronald Keirle
"I object to this application in the strongest possible terms on the grounds that there is no real need to take the MASSIVE RISKS involved in building another nuclear power station! Money, land and time would be much better spent building safer sustainable power generation technologies such as wind and wave. These do not produce extremely dangerous radioactive waste which still has no long term solution for its disposal, unlike like nuclear power. Wind and wave also present no extreme hazzard in case of natural or terrorist disaster like Fukoshima or 9/11 respectively!"

Jennifer Bell
"I do not have a financial interest in this land but I have an interest in land which may become contaminated through accident or earthquake or flooding or an event or by human fault as has happened so often in the past with dire results to both the environment and human health and well being. The UK is a small island and we should take care to leave it in good order. Nuclear is not the way to provide energy in the West Country or in the British Isles generally."

Mrs Jennifer Kinahan
"The aspect of the application which I strongly disagree with is the scrapping of the original plan to build a road to the North of Bridgwater off the M5 at J23 linking with the C182. The traffic in Bridgwater is already very congested,especially at peak times and during the summer months. The extra traffic which will result from both the build and the continuing function of Hinkley Point C will bring roads to a standstill, seriously affecting all residents of the town and the surrounding area. My family and I live seven miles from Bridgwater and already have to contend with this traffic on a daily basis when accessing the M5 junctions 23 and 24 and whenever we go to the towns of Bridgwater and Taunton for work, shopping,leisure activities, dental and medical appointments. I would also like included in the plan an absolute ban on Hinkley point traffic using anything but the designated routes to and from the site as lanes are very narrow around the area and through the villages with very few passing places. It would be unacceptable if these lanes were to be used by heavy vehicles or even just a significant increase in traffic as it would make it very hard for local residents to go about their daily lives and businesses in safety and for farm traffic to move between areas of their land and farms."

Jan Rigden
"The work on the new Hinkley nuclear power station should not commence until the infrastructure is in place. The existing roads, the NDR and A39, surrounding Bridgwater and Cannington are always busy particularly in the summer months, and a project of this size would mean an unacceptable level of extra traffic on these roads that have not been built for this capacity. In the event of an accident the tailbacks would create chaos preventing emergency vehicles from getting through. Therefore it is essential that a new northern route to bypass Bridgwater, preferably a dedicated route to Hinkley, should be built before any work starts."

Ben Hartshorn
"Nuclear power is not proven to be safe or cost-effective. It neither meets our need to replace current production methods with renewable resources nor the necessity to reduce our consumption of energy and finite resources associated with its production."

Dr Nicola Hall
"I disagree with this application for the following reasons, briefly summarized: 1) Inadequate local infrastructure: -inadequate roads for massive, lengthy construction project -Inadequate roads for emergencies -Appalling impact of inevitable excessive traffic on Cannington/Bridgwater. 2) Environment: -local SSSI's affected, which government had promised to restore rather than damage further -removal of woodland/hedges downgrading the habitats & wildlife value permanently -discharge of low level radioactive material into air/sea 3) Flooding: With projected sea level rises this danger will increase & the area has flooded historically, making the site unsuitable in the expert opinion of many 4) Waste storage: -this problem has yet to be addressed nationally & the site is for several reasons inappropriate for nuclear waste storage including spent fuel storage 5) Public health: - there have already been concerns at Burnham locally about radioactivity from existing Hinckley reactors, & the monitoring & reporting of radiation levels has been inadequate already 6) Tourism: -this is a major local industry & is bound to be adversely affected by a new nuclear reactor here 7) Employment: - there are local concerns about the big influx of construction workers; previous power station building has brought a greater influx than the jobs available (job competition, crime are concerns locally) - EDF has a poor history (information from French Trade Unions) as an employer 8) Duration of build: -NO nuclear power station in the world has been built in anywhere near the time allotted, thus it can be predicted that the misery for the locals due to construction traffic etc will be far longer than the hugely over-optimistic 8 years suggested 9) Democracy & accountability: It is quite wrong that this plan should be permitted : - before a national debate over nuclear vs alternative energies has been had - while there is an ongoing legal challenge over a decision to build more nuclear - while the report on the tsunami at Fukushima is still awaited"

Amanda McTaggart
"Expansion of nuclear power at Hinkley Point C greatly disturbs me for the following reasons: 1. Nuclear power is not 100% safe and accidents can be devastating for the human population and the environment. 2. The radioactive waste will remain radioactive for hundreds of years and no one today can affirm 100% that it will be safe until the radioactivity dissipates. 3. Green power technology is advancing and I strongly encourage planners to view it as a safer and more desirable alternative to nuclear. Although the green technology is in its infancy, if given as much funding and research as nuclear, it could provide a much greater proportion of the power market."

Julia Timothy
"The influx of staff could see local residents priced out of the property market. There will be a huge increase in heavy construction traffic in the area impacting on the environment and on tourism as well as putting undue strain on infrastructure. Recent estimated vehicle numbers suggest that, at the peak of the build, there coud be a large vehicle through the village of cannington every 40 seconds during an 11 hour working day, purely for Hinkley Point C construction, in addition to normal Hinkley and other local traffic. EDF's actions in splitting up the various civil works planning applications make it almost impossible to be sure of the full extent of vehicle movements. There is a lack of adequate emergency planning, especially bearing in mind the future risks from nuclear waste and the potentail for nuclear accidents as in Fukushima."

Francis Clark
"I feel very strongly that the risk posed to future generations, by this development, and all the nuclear facilities the world over, is not one that should be handed to them. The legacy of nuclear contamination of the land, sea, and air is already being very clearly demonstrated, and there is nothing we can do to reverse this environmental damage. We ought to be concentrating our efforts funding the existing technologies that are truly carbon neutral, and not investing all this money in this scheme. We are promised that it will not cost the taxpayer anything, but how can this be true? Of course there will be costs to the state, for many generations to come. I expect our descendants will look at us as crazy for using this technology, and certainly won't thank us for what we have done to the planet. I am deeply worried about this, and feel that it should be stopped. We can fin other ways, surely?"

Peter Morrow
"This build will affect you, me and our environment."

Gill Griffin
"I totally oppose any development of a nuclear power station at Hinkley C, on grounds of safety , . cost , a leaving a legacy of nuclear waste for future generations ."

Gabrielle Grace
"The application should not be approved because of the acute long-term dangers of nuclear power in general and, most particularly, of the nuclear waste which it wold produce. There is no safe method of storing nuclear waste and it would continue to pose an ever increasing threat for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. To approve the application would be foolhardy and irresponsible."

Abby
"I am concerned that recent estimated vehicle numbers suggest that, at the peak of the build, one large vehicle will go through the village of Cannington every 40 seconds during an 11 hour working day, purely for Hinkley Point C construction. This seems like an excessive amount of traffic, and the wear and tear on roads, danger to pedestrians and pollution is a high price for local residents to pay. I would like to see the movements of construction traffic restricted and significantly reduced in some way. The proposed nuclear reactor will also have a negative impact on local health and the environment. To mention just two of the possible impacts, across Europe a number of studies have reported increased rates of childhood leukaemia around nuclear facilities, and billions of fish are killed every year when they get trapped in the cooling water intake pipes of nuclear reactors. I has been brought to my attention that the reactor will also lack any significant economic benefit. While there may be some job creation, most of the skilled construction and workforce are expected to be recruited from outside the region. I am concerned about the negative effect that the Hinkley Point staff influx on local services; schools, hospitals etc. This influx will also, undoubtedly mean that Somerset residents will be priced out of housing market - the South West has already seen some of the highest demands for homes, resulting in some of the highest rents outside London. I would like to see more emergency planning for the reactor site. Following the Fukushima disaster, the French Nuclear Watchdog have recommended that extra safety tests and procedures are put in place. I think that we should be going AT LEAST as far as they suggest, and probably further. An additional aspect to protect the local area from pollution in the future (and also protect the public purse) is to ensure that any new nuclear stations have watertight agreements that debar all public subsidy. Owners must prove that they have the financial means (at any time) to safely decommission the station, and store the waste. If this is ever shows them to be unprofitable, then the station can be decommissioned immediately without cost to the tax payer. I would also like to see the IPC consider local concerns over the safety and viability of nuclear power as part of the examination."

Ben Manning
"Clearance of the land for preliminary works in early 2012 is a violation of land which is of special scientific interest and will have a very bad impact on wildlife. The safety issues have not been properly addressed with regard to an accident. The employment issues with regard to Flamanville in France is an example of the likely outcome in somerset despite biased representation in the local press which only serves to enhance the misconception that the station will be a "cash cow" for those living in Sedgemoor."

Barbara French
"I don't wish to have a nuclear power plant when there are so many alternatives"

Martin Shirley
"I believe that the processing and storage of nuclear waste are inherently dangerous and will remain so for generations to come"

Dr Carl Iwan Clowes OBE
"- predisposition to flooding over lifetime of facility - faiture to convincingly address the issue of highly toxic radioactive waste"

Naomi Smyth
"I am writing to object to the plans for this nuclear power station. I own a house in Bristol which, I believe, would be affected by any accidents or sabotage that might occur at the plant. Moreover my local area and its residents as well as a large portion of the country could be affected by radiation and environmental damage by a nuclear meltdown or radiation leak. I do not believe that expanding the UK's nuclear power capacity is a good idea. There is the huge potential damage, lasting generations, of accident or sabotage. Also, even if the plant runs without a hitch for its entire lifetime, there is still the intractable issue of nuclear waste. Currently the policy is to bury it out of sight and out of mind, but this simply stores up the problem for future generations. Some quote the inevitable depletion of cheap fossil fuels over the next few decades as an argument for developing nuclear power. I would argue quite the opposite. In the upcoming era of instability and decline into poverty that Peak oil is likely to usher in, the last thing we need is to end up relying on huge monolithic, expensive and dangerous methods of power generation, that in themselves require plenty of fossil fuel to transport and process the raw materials, and transport the waste far away from the general public without incident. Please reconsider and refuse this planning application for the good of present and future generations."

Clare Tomlinson
"Hello, I am fairly local (30 miles away) and I am concerned about the safety risks of Nuclear power in general. I am concerned that the safety measures in this plan are not adequate enough despite their apparent compliance with government regulations. Do they take into account the risks of natural disasters like we have recently learnt from Japan? The speeding up of climatic changes are unpredictable at this present time and I believe we are creating future problems by attempting to resolve our energy requirements by this potentially devistaing form of nuclear power."

James Davidson
"I believe that the construction traffic would have a very disruptive effect on the local community. Recent estimated vehicle numbers suggest that, at the peak of the build, we could see a large vehicle through the village every 40 seconds during an 11 hour working day, purely for Hinkley Point C construction, in addition to normal Hinkley, and other, local traffic. That the effect on the landscape and local environment of the building will be catastrophic. Hinkley C would, I am sure, have an extremely detrimental effect on the local economy not least as property prices in the area would surely plummet as a direct result. Hinkley Point staff influx could see Somerset residents priced out of housing market. There would appear to be very little that will financially benefit the region. All this disruption is bound to have a very negative affect on local services. The lack of adequate emergency planning beggars belief, especially in the wake of Fukashima. And the fact that this power station is planned for a location that was the scene of an extremely destructive tsunami in 1607 appears to me to be out and out idiocy. I do not believe that nuclear power is in any way a safe means of satisfying our energy needs."

Robin Smith
"Whilst i understand and agree with the need for a new station, my main concern is the extra traffic load on the roads. The by-pass around cannington will come onto the C182 (Hinkley Road), which is used by a number of cyclist & young moped riders from surrounding villages into Bridgwater. I think cycle lanes should be put into the scheme to avoid the possiblity of serious accidents involving these slow moving vehicles on a very busy C road. The cycle lanes should be for Cycles & motor-cycles under 50cc (which are generally restricted to 30mph).It is also worht pointing out that the road is used by a number of slow moving horse boxes as well, with regular events at Stockland Lovell equestrian centre near Stogursey."

Colin Loader
"I am an interested party who generally supports nuclear power and would like to have the opportunity of a say in its support"

Sam Rossiter
"I am writing to object to the plans for this nuclear power station. I own a house in Bristol which, I believe, would be affected by any accidents or sabotage that might occur at the plant. Moreover my local area and its residents as well as a large portion of the country could be affected by radiation and environmental damage by a nuclear meltdown or radiation leak. I do not believe that expanding the UK's nuclear power capacity is a good idea. There is the huge potential damage, lasting generations, of accident or sabotage. Also, even if the plant runs without a hitch for its entire lifetime, there is still the intractable issue of nuclear waste. Currently the policy is to bury it out of sight and out of mind, but this simply stores up the problem for future generations. Some quote the inevitable depletion of cheap fossil fuels over the next few decades as an argument for developing nuclear power. I would argue quite the opposite. In the upcoming era of instability and decline into poverty that Peak oil is likely to usher in, the last thing we need is to end up relying on huge monolithic, expensive and dangerous methods of power generation, that in themselves require plenty of fossil fuel to transport and process the raw materials, and transport the waste far away from the general public without incident. Please reconsider and refuse this planning application for the good of present and future generations."

Mr Barry Haffenden
"I object to the construction of new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point on the grounds that nuclear power is not as claimed completely safe. Germany has planned to scrap it's nuclear programme on grounds of safety. Waste generated by the new reactors will have to be kept on the site for at least sixty years, waste from B station is already leaking into the ground posing a risk to local residents, employees and the environment. Claims that nuclear power is low carbon are contentious as when construction and waste treatment are added to the carbon equation some analysts estimate nuclear to generate more C02 than fossil fuels. Nowhere in all of these arguments have energy conservation been represented as a serious alternative, difficult when generation of power is by profit making companies, or in the case of EDF the French government operating as a private company, supervised by the Americans who own the Atomic Energy Authority, using a finite resource mined in Australia. I live in a village that will be seriously effected by the construction traffic which will all travel through the heart of the village. We are unusual to have a primary school, a secondary school and a further education college, this traffic will have an adverse effect upon their learning environment and safety. If a new nuclear reactor is to be constructed, surely the most sensible, and safest option is to construct the by pass before construction, ideally by passing both Cannington and Bridgwater, as this additional noise and environmental pollution will effect the lives of local residents for eight to ten years."

Janice Joanna Somers Beasley
"1 I have serious concerns that the impact on the access routes to the site, A39, C182 have been totally underestimated, particularly in connection with road safety, access for emergency vehicles for the power station complex and the general environment of the villages accessed from the A39. Tourism and leisure will also be seriously affected: History from other sites (much smaller than this) has shown that the holiday trade will take a decade to recover after the site has been completed. 2 The village of Cannington is medieval and many of the houses are over two hundred years old. The use of this village as a thoroughfare for major construction traffic for a period of up to three years is totally irresponsible and morally indefensible: In particular - when simple solutions to avoid this impact already exist, i.e. a short western bypass as proposed by EdF. It must be noted that pre construction works traffic is already having a significant impact on the village; any increase beyond current traffic levels will inevitably lead to conflict. 3 The unsatisfactory nature of the EdF consultations, misinformation, strategic omissions and inaccurate statements. A seriously flawed exercise."

Andy Andrews
"I object to the building of Hinkley C because of the destruction it will bring to the land, natural habitat of rare and endangered species. It will destroy the infrastructure and delicate balance that local communities have developed over an extensive period of time. It will force many local people in the surrounding areas to relocate due the immense upheaval that will be cause by the building of Hinkley C. The pollution that will be caused by the build development will be immense and there are no safeguards with local or national Government that can protect the land or the people. I am opposed to such developments because there of the inherent risk to humanity and the environment."

Kim Chenoweth
"My concern is that nowhere,in any part of the land or ocean bed,is a safe and appropriate place for nuclear waste disposal.Future generations have a right NOT to be burdened with our mismanagement,short termism and lack of responsible decision making. Green,and clean ways can be found."

Mr Grant Edwards
"I’ve no objections to another power station at Hinkley Point, but have great concerns about the infrastructure and access / egress while carrying out the build and once the station is running. E.D.E.F have been told at every meeting about the need to build a dedicated Haul type road directly to Hinkley Point power station from J23 M5. The Barnes report of 1989 indicated the Northern by-pass route as an option, if this route was to be taken it would eliminate virtually all the problems as indicated by everyone to date and would affect only a handful of people. E.D.E.F currently wishes to build a Western by-pass at Cannington to eliminate traffic problems in the village. Planning application for this has not been submitted yet and this plus the build will take 2 ½ - 3 years. No work should commence on the station until a route has been built, if E.D.E.F are allowed to travel through the village until a route is built they will not bother with a route. If a Western by-pass is built it will join the West end of the existing Cannington by-pass and will pass within 30 meters from the front of my house and have a devastating effect on my family’s life as listed below. a) Increased noise, light and air pollution from the by-pass build, laydown and office area to be in front of my house. b) Once by-pass is built there will be increased noise and air pollution from vehicles breaking on approach to the roundabout from the North and increased light pollution at night. c) It will be difficult to access our driveway due to traffic queuing at the roundabout and outside our house. d) I work nights driving LGV, and need to get sleep during the day (7-8 hours between 07:00 and 15:00 hrs.) the traffic noise will have a detrimental effect on my sleep, which will be worsened during the summer months when there is a need for windows to be opened. e) Extra noise, air pollution and diminished privacy make it undesirable to be out in my garden. f) Damage to dry stone wall boundaries, and verges due to queued vehicles outside on the road. g) Our property has already been de-valued due to the EDF application. It will lose even more value during the building process which will make it impossible to sell. How this will affect the community of Cannington if a proper route is not found…. a) Increased risk of accidents. b) Damage to the highways, property’s and their boundaries. c) Damage to heritage, listed buildings, monuments, walls and structures. d) Increased noise, air and light pollution. e) Congestion on roads increased travelling time, frustration and aggression. f) Parking problems due to extra through traffic and nowhere to park for shops. g) Residents will have symptoms from air pollution and stress from higher noise pollution. h) Loss of value to properties and business. i) Loss of community, who will want to live here ."

Mobbs' Environmental Investigations
"In my view the development of a new nuclear plant does not provide an effective response to the developing ecological limitations to providing our energy needs. Globally world oil production has reached a plateau; gas and coal production will also reach a peak and decline in the near future. Within the UK energy economy we have already experienced these phenomena; coal production peaked in the mid-1920s, oil production in 1999 and natural gas production in 2003. Britain also has no viable/commercial source of uranium capable of sustaining thermal fission. Therefore creating a new nuclear plant is arguably not an appropriate development in response to the UK's perceived need for energy. Only a significant cut in energy consumption, to rebalance demand with the viable future supply, can achieve this, and this involves a wholly different set of spatial development objectives. In terms of the specific characteristics nuclear plant, there are also problems with the global supply of uranium. A peak in global uranium supply may only be a decade or so away. In 2005, I wrote a paper on this issue for the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, identifying this trend and its impacts upon the development of new nuclear power plant. In 2007, the European Energy Watch Group conducted a global study of uranium resources and came to much the same conclusion. In 2009, as part of a presentation to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil and Gas I outlined how energy and economic development are closely entwined, and that the UK faces a serious economic problem as the depletion of energy sources begins to destabilise the global economy. In order to address these challenges we must develop systems which are integrated with local energy demand, local agricultural or industrial processes, and which largely utilise renewable forms of energy. A nuclear power plant with a design lifetime in excess of thirty years is not compatible with such a shift in policy -- and arguably would obstruct it. I wish to submit a written representation to the IPC in order to highlight the energy supply/energy market issues raised by this application, and, as a result, why this conflicts with the UK's legal obligation on development and environmental protection. I would concentrate upon: # The structure of the UK energy market and why the depletion of both fossil fuels and uranium will create severe economic and operation problems for that system; # How a new nuclear plant would perform in that market, the contradiction between the mode of power production and supply a nuclear plant represents and the types of development needed to address the changing energy situation; and # Why, given the fundamental restrictions of ecological limits, the operation of such a plant conflicts with the wider sustainability objectives required within both UK planning law and guidance, and the UK's legal/treaty commitments on energy and environment at the European and International level."

Mr Ronald James Bater
"I do not think there has been enough examination of the traffic inpact on cannington,The byepass is the first thing to be built."

Sustaination
"Please think long and hard about this one. If there's no one on the panel under the age of 35 please question your motives for making this decision. Is it for you, or for your children? Do you think that when the sea level has risen (inevitable) and resources are stretched still further (also inevitable) they're really going to want to deal with this power station, too? It's a 1970s design! Just.. can't you sit and wait until we've got a nice 4th or 5th generation design we can implement? Apparently not. Why? Why not invest in something new and bold? If you're going to do nuclear, do it right. Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area (one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset, Devon and South Wales, including my family and friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for its eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

Peter Austin
"While not disputing the proposals to use Combwich Warf for outsize loads, the proposal to build a Freight Laydown facility adjacent to the warf is ill thought out and will lead to a huge increase in traffic, noise, light and dust polution to the residents of the village, as well as significanly increasing the flood risk. Almost a million tonnes of material will be required to raise the 10.1 hectare site by just one meter and this represents some 60,000 road movements - over a C class road! In addition, this land is currently agricultural and in a heavy rainstorm, where will that water now go? The flood defences of the village are not designed to cope with industrial run off. There is ample land in the old 'A' station to accommadate such a facility and the IPC should insist that full cooperation on such matters between the A station owners and EDF is a condition of any approval. Even better, bearing in mind that EDF will need to build a Hinkley D to make the whole project viable, a direct link road from J23 to Hinkley should be built. The whole aspect of traffic appears to have been glossed over. Just look at the chaos in Bridgwater when a road is closed, or the A39 due to an accident or other issue."

Mr Ian Venton
"I agree with the Hinkley Point C power station, however my major concern and worry is the lack of understanding for the need of a bypass for Bridgwater and Cannington. This would run from the A38 on the outskirts of Bridgwater (north) over the River Parrott around Bridgwater towards Cannington to link up with the existing Cannington bypass and then around the north west area of Cannington to link up with Hinkley Point. May I please stress the amount of accidents and fatalities that have occurred on the A38 stretch between Bridgwater and Cannington, every year with the current volume of traffic. On every occassion the road has been closed for up to five hours bringing the Bridgwater area and West Somerset to a standstill, due to this road being the only road to Hinkley Point. If at any point there is the need for Emergency Services to get to Hinkley Point and there has been a serious traffic incident, I see no way of the Emergency Services being able to get through. What will happen then ?"

Kit Sadgrove
"There are no evacuation plans. There is a risk of flooding. EDF has a bad track record, eg at Flamanville. In the UK, EDF is heavily complained about. Construction traffic would badly affect tourism."

Mr Lewis Bsc Conservation
"Please find below my submission of representation 1. Construction Traffic (important as affecting locals) - Traffic Vehicle movement in Cannington every 40 seconds during an 11 hour working day, purely for Hinkley Point C construction, in addition to normal Hinkley, and other, local traffic. - Villagers saying consultation on traffic was not done properly by EDF. - Damage to Houses by vibration of traffic not taken into consideration by EDF. - 93% of Cannington villagers do not want the EDF traffic through their village. - These are unbearable living conditions for villagers as Hinkley C is scheduled for a minimum of ten years construction. Plus overwhelming traffic pollution - Villagers are against compulsory purchase of their homes and worry about the devaluation of their property.. -should there be a nuclear accident at Hinkley Point traffic congestion would hamper evacuation process. 2.Contamination of land and therefore a breach of the human rights act. -EDF's commissioned AMEC to take samples and make measurements of radioactivity at various locations on the proposed site for HinkleyC. Green Audit independently examined the data to see if there were any radiological safety issues. There is evidence of enriched Uranium pollution on the land. (!) http://www.stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf 3. Land Status - designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) - a Site of Community Importance (SCI) - the estuary is also designated as a wetland of international importance - a Site of Special Scientific Interest.SSSIs (e.g. the Gwent Levels SSSI complex) - Irreplaceable ancient woodland and hedges. -New nuclear build would require spent fuel (too hot to move) to be stored on site for 160 years. This would be dangerous at Hinkley due to the limestone geology of the site and in case of an accident at the plant. 4.Health -Low level radiation is emitted by nuclear power stations this has been proved to be dangerous to young children. -Regular controlled and uncontrolled venting of radioactive particles will put the local population at risk. In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. Cancer rates in Burnham on Sea are up to five times higher than the national average. Hinkley C will add to the dangers to public health. http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/pearson.htm http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_PR_COMARE14_critique.pdf Highly radioactive waste stored on site for 160 years will increase health risks. 5. Local Jobs -EDF says several thousand people will be employed constructing Hinkley C. The Flamanville scenario show EDF use subcontractors to import foreign workers vulnerable to exploitation and are being accused by French Unions of modern day slavery. http://www.socialdemocrats.eu/gpes/public/detail.htm?id=135913§ion=NER&category=NEWS&startpos=21&topicid=-1&request_locale=EN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx6pcqdOa7Y 6. Democracy -EDF consultations not widely publicised. -There has been no proper national debate and the government and the industry have colluded to stop information coming out over the Fukushima nuclear disaster. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima -The sustainable development committee advised the government against nuclear. Expecting opposition the government introduced a fast track infrastructure planning programme (the IPC) -Stop Hinkley have collected 12,750 against HinkleyC. -Road signs of Hinkley C are up already giving the impression of a done deal weakening local opposition. The local council salami slicing the application gives the same impression - The whole application is based on the lie that Nuclear is a green technology and will save us from Climate Change. (Hinkley Point is on the coast of the second biggest tidal wave in the world, climate change makes coastal areas vulnerable to flood risk ) http://www.link2portal.com/council-give-go-ahead-groundworks-hinkley-point 7. Power lines - new pylons are twice the size of the existing ones ( height and width ) 8. How local is locality? -Bristol City council , Exeter and South Wales have had no input on the decision making on new nuclear. Accidents at Hinkley Point would make these areas uninhabitable and emergency services not able to cope. -This national infrastucture project hasn't had national input though it will have consequences lasting generations. Fukushima and Chernobyl have shown that radiation knows no borders."

Anne Lane
"need bridge and new road from M5 for traffic and emergency service provision."

Steve Henderson
"i believe that development of hinkley point c power plant is a positive for the south west, in terms of jobs and income into the economy. i think that at this moment nuclear power is the cleanest cheapest option for long term energy production but i would expect ongoing research into management of nuclear waste as this is the most contentious issue surrounding this kind of energy generation."

Kate Adams
"The recent major incident exercise run at Avon and Somerset Police Headquarters, attended by many agencies including EDF, highlighted the absolute essential need for a bypass to be built from Junction 23 of the M5 at Dunball to the power station. With the current road system, even a minor traffic accident or incident would bring the power station traffic to a standstill. The NDR cannot take the weight of HGVs, so the traffic would have to go right through the town, causing mayhem. It is quoted that there will be a vehicle every 40 seconds during the peak of the build. The residents of Bridgwater, Cannington, Combwich and the surrounding areas DESERVE some peace and quiet. Te plans should not be accepted without including a bypass of some sort. I represent the views of my families, colleagues and friends in this message."

Fiona Helmer
"Nuclear power stations supposedly generate very cheap power and in the process produce waste that remains toxic for 1000s of years and CANNOT be disposed of safely. In case of any earthquakes or subsidence or any other means of damage these stations pollute and contaminate the earth and the surrounding area. I believe renewable resources can generate energy at a fraction of the real cost of nuclear power stations. I SUGGEST THAT ALL EDF MANAGEMENT AND STOCK HOLDERS AND ANYONE WHO WANTS NUCLEAR POWER BE MADE TO LIVE NEXT TO NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS . IF THEY HAD TO - HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD STILL WANT IT? WE DO NOT WANT OR NEED NUCLEAR POWER - IT IS TOO DANGEROUS AND POLLUTING AND EXPENSIVE - THAT IS THE TRUTH."

Peter Nurse
"As a member of Combwich Motorboat and Sailing Club I sail my boat in Combwich Pill. I understand EdF wish to curtail the access to the pill."

Johanna van Fessem
"I have read and understood the first two, but did not understand no. 3 about the merits of policy, because the language is too difficult for me. Still I ticked the box, because I thought I might not be read or heard when I did not. This is not meant vexatious or frivolous. I have a legal interest in the land, because it is part of the land where I live legally. And everything which happens or could happen on that land on the scale and impact of Hinkley Point, has an enormous impact on all the county and country around it. My interests: a. I live in Glastonbury. Just within the 30 mile zone which has to be evacuated when a serious accident would happen at the power station of Hinkley Point. b. To live safe in a safe country. Nuclear Power from fission is not safe. (see the many reports and arguments against Nuclear Power from fission and results inFukushima and Tsjernobyl) c. Intelligent countries like Germany and Austria have made forfeit Nuclear Power from fission. Why does an intelligent country like Britain still want to continue with it? There are many other options. d. Financial reasons, financial gain, more jobs etc. donot weigh out the risk and -even when there are no accidents- the risk of having to store undisposable radiating dangerous nuclear waste for thousands of years, making parts of the country no-go areas. e. In a place and surroundings of such outstanding natural beauty isn't it grievous to build such a vast and ugly plant? f.I don't need and want energy from nuclear fission. I use little electricity and in very near future this will be from renewable sustainable sources."

Eleanor Richards
"I object to the application to build Hinkley C power station in Somerset. I also object that the IPC rules does not allow objectors to raise any issues to do with nuclear power (as laid down in the government's National Policy Statements). However I believe that nuclear power is unsustainable and that their is no safe long term method of disposal for nuclear waste which could be detrimental to the present and future population. Furthermore, the town of Bridgwater and the surrounding area will suffer the delays caused on the road by construction traffic, at the same time reaping little economic benefit as the build will employ very few local people. Plant and animal life in the proposed site will continue to suffer as it has already with the preliminary works PRE the application being accepted. The planning system is fundamentally flawed in this respect. As ever money holds power over all- government and people. Lets hope Fukushima doesn't happen here."

Mike Rigby
"I object to the application for a new nuclear power station at Hinley Point on the basis that there is no need for nuclear energy in the UK as demonstrated by the Government's own Sustainable Development Commission. The technology has been shown to be unsafe on many occasions around the world. It is expensive and, despite Government assurances, I simply do not believe that it will be built, operated and decommissioned without public subsidy; this has never been achieved anywhere else in the world and I have no faith that it will happen here. I find it deeply selfish that we seek to obtain electricity for a few decades and the result of that is the production of toxic waste, for which the Government still has no long-term solution, that we ask the next few hundred generations of people to manage on our behalf. The North Somerset coastine has been despoiled by the existing A and B stations. A is no longer in service but the huge blue buildings that once housed the reactors cannot begin to be removed for at least another 100 years due to the toxicity of what they contain. This is about as far removed from sustainable energy policy as it is possible to get. We should not be further damaging our landscape in this way before tidying up the mess already made. I am concerned about security of fuel supply. We have no domestic sources and rely on overseas resources, which may well be extremely stretched (causing increased costs or interruptions to supply) if the mooted global expansion of nuclear energy takes place. Lastly, these plants are not fail-safe, they occasionally explode scattering radioactive debris across widespread areas. I'd really rather not have to evacuate my home and abandon West Somerset for decades, which is the sort of thing that has happened elsewhere in the world."

Jonathan Heriz-Smith
"The proposal is for an industrial process for which no sustainable waste management policy is in place. This is contrary to PPS 10 including most importantly paragraph 30 'Health'. The onus is shared between the Planning Authority and the Disposal body in this regard. The long-term risk of contamination into air/water sources including groundwater is high, and the effect of such contamination on humans is of wide-scale illnesses including leukemia and other cancers, and through a contaminated food-chain which itself will become depleted. The only treatment of such waste is safe storage for many millennia - such storage has not yet been found in the UK, and very rarely has this solution been attempted in other countries. In Norway for instance they are attempting this but are unsure about how to stop future generations from opening up this storage facility, and are not yet satisfied that the facility is leak-proof and that it will remain geologically stable. No civilization has existed as long as the half-life of the worst of this waste, so therefore we can be sure that it will not be maintained in a safe state while it remains harmful. There are alternative solutions to the challenge of energy use which don't have the outcome of a carcinogenic planet, which other countries have adopted - the harnessing of nuclear energy comes at a price that no-one in 60 years has yet solved, and so never will, and which could affect your own children and grand children's health"

Jane Abrahall
"There is a 'cocktail' of nuclear facilities here, different ages etc. not safe and unknown consequences if accident. If sea levels rise, even a small amount, there will be consequences for the site The cost, environmental and financial, of building here far out weighs any saving of environment and carbon emission"

Crispin Aubrey
"I object to the proposal to construct a Hinkley C nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, near Bridgwater, for the following reasons. This is a summary but not exclusive list of issues I would like to raise. 1. Accident risk: A new nuclear power station will increase the risk of a serious accident affecting a wide area of the country. Fukushima in Japan is the most recent example of what can happen. 2. Waste: Radioactive waste will be stored at the site for at least 100 years, adding to the ongoing risk to the local population. The spent fuel generated by the proposed European Pressurised Reactor carries greater risk than normal because of its greater heat generating properties and increased volatility. As importantly, there is no final disposal site yet agreed for this and other similar wastes. We should not be adding to the stockpile until this is in place and operating. 3. Alternative energy sources: Germany is showing that it is feasible to provide power for a major industrialised economy without the need for new nuclear build. 4. Flooding: The uniquely large tidal reach of the Severn Estuary, exacerbated by excalating climate change, means that the risk of flooding along the coast at Hinkley Point will increase, especially over the timescale for which radioactive waste will be stored. Fukushima has also shown us that freak weather events such as tsunamis can occur unexpectedly and at greater strength than predicted. The 1607 Great Flood affecting the Somerset coast and stretching some way inland is an example of what can happen in the Hinkley area. 5. Emergency planning: Fuksuhima has also reminded us that evacuation plans round UK nuclear power stations are inadequate, envisaging an evacuation area stretching only a few kilometres. If Fukushima had happened here then the town of Bridgwater, population 40,000, would have been forcibly evacuated. 6. Construction traffic: It is clear that the level of construction traffic expected for this major development will strain the local infrastructure beyond acceptable limits, even with the adaptation proposals presented by the developers. It is essential that a bypass is constructed round the town of Bridgwater, along a northern route similar to that proposed at the time of the original Hinkley C public inquiry, so that this issue is adequately addressed. No construction work should be allowed to commence until this is in place. 7. Health: Discharges from the power station will increase the risk to the health of the local population. Studies already show higher than expected levels of various cancers round nuclear power stations. It doesn’t make sense to add to this risk. 8. Local environment: Building this power station will devastate about 400 acres of currently unspoilt countryside, as well as disturbing a coastline protected by a number of both national and international conservation designations. This is unacceptable. 9. Jobs: The benefits to the local area in terms of jobs are likely to be small compared with the total value of the project. EdF estimates that only a fifth of jobs will go to people who live in Somerset, which could include those who have deliberately moved into the area."

Sarah Maylor
"Sedgemoor has one of the highest demands for housing in the South West. I have a concern that construction workers will chose not to travel 60/90 minutes to the park and ride pick up points and will instead chose to rent accommodation within Bridgwater. This increased demand is likely to increase local rents and make them unaffordable for local people. This will have an impact on the Local Housing Allowance levels and therefore the housing benefit bill. With potentially 5,000 workers at peak and a campus which only caters for a percentage of this worker force, are there any measures that have been taken which will mitigate the impact of the demand on the local housing market and the potential displacement of local people?"

Georgie Lyng
"No new nuclear. I don't want a nuclear power station on my doorstep. It is dangerous, poses risk to the environment, marine life and human life. It is an expensive subsidised waste of public money. The issue of nuclear waste cannot be dealt with and poses further risk to the soil and ecosystems. Nuclear power is not a renewable energy and consistently blocks renewable development, distracting from true sustainable development. As usual the Government has ploughed ahead with authorising new nuclear pre-consultation for which legally it has already been found at fault. Any site is not acceptable, yet as usual an area is chosen which has low population and little power to object. Why not re-locate it next to the houses of parliament? why should nearby residents and businesses be put at risk from contamination if London isn't prepared to have it in their economic centre? Did noone learn nothing from Fukushima? Sea locations / natural movements in the tectonic plates pose substantial risk to safety and assuming it does not matter the location is not (currently) on a fault line or prone to seismic activity is extremely short sighted since the earth is in dynamic motion and it would be a bad legacy to leave to future generations. The threat of climate change is real, it is happening, sea levels are rising and increases in erratic weather is happening. Developing new nuclear now is extremely irresponsible as the risk of flooding and tidal surges pose increasing risk to communities."

Peter Shaw
"My home is within 500m of Combwich Wharf and all my bedrooms and their windows face the wharf. I am very concerned at thedisturbance from noise, light and dust that I will be subject to during the alteration/ rebuilding stage. I am not objecting to the use of the wharf for AIL's but do object to any further ship or vehical use. As a motorist I am concerned about the impact of much higher levels of traffic, specially heavy lorries on the C182 (Hinkley Point ) road, our only route out of the village. I am also concerned about safety issues at the junctions to Combwich and Otterhampton and Steart from the C182. which are already potential accident sites."

Christine Ambrose
"The issue of a third nuclear power station at Hinckley was investigated and put through the process of a public enquiry at considerable expense some years ago. The outcome of that enquiry was that it should not be built. Although some time has elapsed since that period I do not feel that the situation has changed in any way that would merit ignoring the evidence and findings of that previous enquiry. That is my principle objection but I have to add that following the Japanese disaster last year a nuclear installation beside the Bristol Channel, with its very large tidal range, should not be being considered now."

Michael Squires
"As a resident of Cannington,and being fully aware of present traffic problems, I feel very strongly that there must be a northern bypass and that no work should be allowed until a northern route is constructed. I feel this will benefit the whole of the surrounding area and alleviate any future problems caused by the construction and working of another nuclear station. The volume of heavy traffic currently using the High Street (today I counted 8 heavy construction lorries in 4 minutes!) will undoubtedly affect the infrastructure of the village."

Nicola Withers
"I wish to register my disagreement with the proposed Hinkley Point Expansion plan. I live in Bridgwater, a town already subject to severe traffic congestion due to a lack of effective ring roads. All traffic has to come at least part of the way into the town before it can get onto the A39 to Cannington and on to Hinkley Point. The town will not be able to cope with the increased traffic that the expansion will bring. Hinkley Point is near an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the increased pylons required to carry the electricity will be a huge blight on the Somerset Levels and Quantocks landscape with no regard to the aesthetic impact. I also regard the increase in Nuclear Power Reactors as a health and safety hazard that could potentially put all our lives at risk."

Steve Smith
"I wish to object to a number of the proposals within the Hinkley Pont application. 1) The siting of a 510 bed campus close to Shurton and other small rural villages is unacceptable and will have a detrimental inpact on the area both visually and through the additional number of people utilising local facilites e.g. pubs, roads etc. At an early stage of this so called consultation we were assured there would be no parking for private cars at Hinkley C, the proposal to have 353 parking spaces at the campus was not mentioned. The number of cars travelling to the campuse will add massively to traffic movment in the area and should not be allowed. 2) Any Bypass around Cannington should be completed before works begin. The current proposal to delay the start of work is ludicrous and I have no confidence that the Bypass will even be built. 3) The transport plans with regard to buses being routed through the High Street of Stogursey and through the surrounding narrow lanes are ill thought out and contradictory with regard to the number of buses per day that will travel through the village. The current plans give different numbers and some routes are not shown at all. At a minimum it would seem 72 buses per day will travel this narrow route, this is completely unacceptable will lead to massive conjestion (as the buses will not be able to pass each other) buses should travel via the A39 and the Cannington Bypass. 4) The proposal to build a massive lit storage and lay down area (in use 24 hours per day) close to houses in the quite village of Combwich is completely unacceptable and will severly damage the quality of life of residents. 5) At an early stage, assurances were given that White Van freight would be consolidated at the Motorway junctions to cut down on traffic. This plan has been abandoned and will lead to massive conjestion on local roads."

Rachel Dyer
"A nuclear power station at Hinkley Point is unnecessary. Money would be better spent on an insulation programme for the UK; it is cheaper and would employ many more people. Also as a nation we need to use less energy per person if we are to slow down the pace of global warming. The UK needs further investment in renewable technologies such as Solar & Wind. The long term storage of nuclear waste has not been safely determined. The proposed design at Hinkley has a very high core temperature and its safety is not proven. Further I am concerned about the following local effects. ?Effects of construction traffic ?Effects on landscape and the local environment ?Lack of economic benefit ?Effect on local services ?Lack of adequate emergency planning The impact of further development will be detrimental to this rural county of Somerset."

Williamson-Dickie Europe
"Williamson-Dickie Europe representation to Infrrastructure Planning Commission We fully support the application on the basis that the entire project is managed and delivered in accordance to the applicable Health, Safety, Environmental and Construction Regulation and that the impact on the local and regional community is minimised wherever practicably possible. Our support for this project sees both the short term and long term benefits that such a project encompasses for the whole region."

Robbie Spence
"My concerns about EDF’s proposal for Hinkley C Nuclear Power Station are simply that nuclear power is not an option. Fukoshima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island show this. So does the fact that nuclear waste takes thousands of years to stop being radio-active."

Carol Edwards
"I wish to express my concerns regarding EDF’s application for Hinkley C Power Station. EDF appear to have ignored any opposition expressed by local Residents concerning traffic. The road system from M5 junctions 23 and 24 via A38 and A39 through Bridgwater and the centre of Cannington is totally unsuited to the enormous level of HGV and other traffic which would be involved. The A39 between Bridgwater and Cannington suffers from frequent accidents resulting in several deaths. When accidents occur on this road, the alternative routes (which are single lane country roads) become totally grid-locked. Should a serious event happen at Hinkley Point, it would be almost impossible for any emergency vehicles to get through. The Barnes Report was commissioned in 1989 which recommended that a new Nuclear Power Station should only be built after a suitable bypass from Bridgwater was built. Since this Report was done, the amount of traffic on our roads has substantially increased, but the roads have stayed virtually the same. The proposed bypass to the west of Cannington, will have no impact on the traffic coming from the Motorway through Bridgwater. EDF have gone through the motion of consulting the Residents of Bridgwater and surrounding villages, but have not listened to the deep concerns voiced. All the traffic solutions proposed by EDF have caused great distress to local Residents creating a deep mistrust of EDF. I actually live right beside the proposed Cannington bypass which will take 18 months – 2 years to build. In the meantime all the traffic will come through the village which will have a devastating effect on my family’s quality of life. - The noise and light pollution created by this bypass will have a direct effect on my family. - We will have difficulty in entering and leaving our driveway due to traffic queuing on the roundabout. - Our property has already been de-valued due to the EDF application. It will loose even more value during the building process which will make it impossible to sell. - My husband works nights and needs to sleep during the day. The increase in traffic noise will make it very difficult to get adequate sleep. - My children would not be able to walk to School due to a huge increase in traffic. - The laydown area for the proposed Cannington bypass will be right in front of my house and will have a direct impact on our lives. It is so important that EDF get it right the first time as the impact on local Residents is immense. It is therefore imperative that a satisfactory solution to the traffic problem be sorted. I would urge you to refuse the application until a solution to the traffic problem has been agreed. I wholeheartedly support a road from M5 junction 23 passing north of Bridgwater and Cannington before rejoining the A39 to the west."

Teresa Thorne
"The additional traffic in our traffic is of paritcular concern to me with children who are out on the roads on bycicles and walking around the village. The park and rides being suggested on the edge of the village will do absolutely nothing to stop the build-up of heavy traffic in Bridgwater and the A39."

Andrew Harris
"1. The current proposals for traffic claming and proposed direction of traffic around the village will merely result in the village being used as a "rat run" as people will still travel through the village (probably at speed) to try and beat the slower traffic using the proposed road expected to cut through Brymore School. 2. The park and rides on the edge of the village will do nothing to limit the amount of traffic travelling through Bridgwater and the additional traffic will cause long traffic jams and inconvenience locals considerably."

Tim Moss
"The proposal from EDF to build another nuclear power station at Hinkley Point is generally accepted in this area, it is unfortunate therefore that they cannot be a little more magnanimous as far as the mode of building is concerned. We have been given to believe that the desperate need for electrical energy is so profound that we need to go ahead without hesitation. Is the application to the IPC then purely a rubber stamping operation. Most residents of this area feel that trying to oppose any part of the application futile and certainly EDF has been deaf to our main concern. The part of the application which gives most concern is the effect that a project of this magnitude will have will have on our road system. The only useable route to Hinkley Point is via the A39 through Cannington and thence along the access road built originally for the “A Station” in the 1950s. EdF has proposed a Cannington bypass taking the shortest and cheapest route possible with little consideration for the irreplaceable piece of countryside or homes it will blight, not to mention the old drive of the Brymore estate which has been in place since before Parliamentarian John Pym’s residence there. The construction of the proposed bypass would clearly reduce traffic through Cannington, but would do nothing to help its residents in the pursuance of their everyday activities. Commuting, shopping and for many tradesmen working, all require use of the A39 to Bridgwater, this is already a busy highway. I, together with many right minded local people, believe strongly that the additional construction traffic will seriously impact on the lives of local people. The current pre-consent preparation phase is presenting us with up to 300 heavy trucks every working day, when this is added to our annual holiday influx and tractor drawn trucks at harvest time we can only predict total chaos for all users of the A39 through and to the west of Bidgwater. Looking at the recent Fushukima disaster one must believe that emergency access is likely to be compromised by the lack of a second route to the site. EDF have so far gone out of their way to ignore demands from those attending the many consultation meetings for a Norhern Bypass, from Dunball to Combwich, This was a recommendation of the previous Public Inquiry and it should still be a condition of IPC approval."

Anthony Lamb
"EFFECT ON ROADS (Council is unhappy with this) Construction traffic, vehicle movement through village. Traffic through Sedgemoor and through Bridgwater town. Only one road and no bypass planned for Bridgwater. Damage to housing - vibration Impact on quality of life Local Consultation in actual area around Hinkley Point, has it been sufficient? Compulsory Purchase Orders Emergency vehicles in local areas, can they get in and out? Roads and Infrastructure, Hinkley C workers may not be able to get to work due to their own traffic, roads clogged up (seen in other major construction sites) as this will be the largest building site in UK . Congestion will affect tourism for many years. Congestion will affect farming for many years. This will be the Sellafield of the West country with only one road to it. 700 Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) per day through Bridgwater. EVACUATION PLANS Evacuation plans in the event of any catastrophe doesn't appear to be in the EDF application. If there is an emergency on site, trying to get out on one road. If B station has an accident while C is being built EDF doesn't have evacuation procedure for the workers. FLOODING ISSUE There is a 100 year risk in this area and waste storage will be kept on site for at least 160 years. DELAY WITH EDF NUCLEAR BUILDS EDF have 3 EPR build projects with design and construction problems resulting in time and cost over-runs at Flamanville (France), Olkiluoto (Finland) and Taishan (China) WASTE – SPENT FUEL Storage area ponds not designed yet. Hinkley only has a 7 year storage capacity? High level Waste Storage facility, we have not had that before at Hinkley. Cooling of Spent Waste how will this be done? DEMOCRACY Nuclear lessons learned Lack of Consultation National Grid impact – Pylons Lack of national debate and lack of enquiries. We haven't had a choice EDF is the most complained about energy company NNB Genco Ltd are not experienced at building nuclear power stations EDF have 2 pressurized reactors running late with design faults and have not yet successfully completed this type of project. EDF have been giving ‘sweeteners' to local schools and businesses, and have stifled and tried to control the anti-nuclear point of view. RISK ELEMENT High and harmful impact of nuclear Government are not open and heard by us. CONTAMINATION OF LAND Ref: Green Audit Report High level waste storage on site. STATUS OF LAND Hinkley Point includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) The Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) target to have 95% of the SSSI area in favourable or recovering condition by 2010 Removal of Woodlands and Hedges affecting habitat for a variety of protected species. The legislation is there to ensure conservation of that area. HEALTH Impact of chronic low level radiation exposure on health and the local ecology is being ignored. Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in the estuary, e.g Bridgwater Bay mudflats. Monitoring and reporting of radioactive discharges unacceptable (public only given annual average figures) Health issues at Burnham-on-Sea and elsewhere. JOBS PROMISE Inadequate assessment of the number and impacts of large numbers of foreign workers. Risk of unemployment going up as more people flock to the area for work than there are jobs available, as happened at Flamanville. As an employer EDF treats its workers very poorly. French trade unions say workers are treated like slaves."

Isobel Cadbury
"Following the disaster in Fukushima, Japan last year, and taking into account the likelihood that a tsunami devastated Somerset in 1607, I am convinced that no amount of economic advantages and no amount of safety assurances can weigh against the possibility of such a disaster happening again in the Severn estuary, this time with terrible consequences. Alternative energy production has not been properly explored."

Chris Hancock
"Our local Somerset County Council News encourages the electorate to have a say in the plans for Hinkley Point C. I have to say that I have no faith in this process - it seems a foregone conclusion that this project will be rubber stamped with no regard for what anyone who lives in the area wants. However if it's evidence you want on why this should not go ahead, look no further than the recent events in Japan for the best evidence possible AGAINST nuclear power in general & Hinkley in particular. I live in Glastonbury as do my children & grandchildren & I DO NOT want electricity to be sourced this way with the horrendous risk involved. I am sure that the people of Fukushima were assured that there was no risk to the nuclear facility being built on their doorstep & how it would bring jobs.Nuclear power is not worth the risk & I oppose Hinkley C in the strongest terms."

Jessie Watson Brown
"i thoroughly disagree with the application. i am particularly worried about impacts to traffic flow, especially around the refusal to properly consider a northern bypass. so i believe no work should be allowed until it has been confirmed that a northern dedicated route or Bridgwater and Cannington bypass is constructed. i also have concerns about the environmental impact of such a large-scale building in such an area."

Somerset Tourism Association
"The Somerset Tourism Association is a Community Interest Company established to promote the historic County of Somerset (which includes North Somerset and BANES) as a tourism destination, by raising awareness of, and the quality of, all local products and activities related to tourism. We represent the interests of tourism related businesses (400+ of which are our members) and of visitors to Somerset. We liaise with statutory and non statutory bodies to further various aims. We wish to take part in constructive negotiations with the other interested parties to ensure the following: that any development at Hinkley enhances, and does not detract from, Somerset's value as a tourism destination; that disruption and road congestion are managed effectively and kept to a minimum; that structures and landscaping on the site respect the site's value as a scenic, wildlife and amenity area; that existing local amenities are not curtailed; that tourism providers throughout the historic County are given opportunities to provide accommodation and leisure facilities for the workforce; that the proposed new Visitor Centre is developed to the maximum of its tourism and education potential; that EDF and other associated companies play a role in conjunction with the STA in promoting Somerset as a tourism destination."

Malcolm Hogg
"Being the Managing Director of an SME based in Nether Stowey, Bridgwater, Somerset, TA5 1LD, requiring vehicular access to the rest of the country. Having resided in the area for more than 35 years, I am gravely concerned at what appears to be a lack of understanding regarding the traffic problems vis-?-vis access to the M5 corridor via Bridgwater. By the Somerset Highways (SH) own admission Bridgwater is destined to be ‘grid locked’ by 2016 and with little planning for that date in evidence, it would be foolish in the extreme to think that the additional traffic circulation created by the construction and eventual operation of the proposed power station Hinkley Point ‘C’ (HPC) will have so little bearing on the situation as to warrant a few junction modifications to alleviate the problems. Proposals for these junction modifications have not been published and along with the deficiency of coherent traffic modelling, I and many of my colleagues and friends are extremely dubious about the consultation. In the previous HPC 1980’s report, ‘Barnes’ it was concluded that a ‘Northern Bypass’ for Bridgwater was a requisite to the construction of a new, indeed smaller, power station. Here we are some 20 odd years later with EDF saying that it is not necessary. I realise that the basis of argument from EDF is that they intend bring a vast majority of materials (i.e. aggregates) in to the site by sea via the proposed temporary jetty, never the less there is only ONE land route to HPC and that is via Bridgwater. The increase in traffic since the Barnes report, in the order of probably 15-20% will negate the advantage of the EDF proposal. The Government and obviously the Country needs this new power station and I welcome the new investment with open arms. The sighting of the new station is without doubt the correct decision as it is an existing nuclear installation, but we must get it right! We are not talking about tomorrow, we talking the next hundred years or so. The infrastructure, traffic wise, being what it is, EDF should not be asked to foot the bill for the lack of investment and planning by SH and the Government in the problems of Bridgwater, but to make a contribution towards what is clearly required, a new Northern Bypass for Bridgwater. Time, Environmental (elevate it) and Cost (this is a 9 billion pound project, the cost of this bypass is insignificant) is the card being played in discarding the proposal of a bypass, if the proposal had been adopted in the first instance it could have been almost completed by now. Almost three years of consultation and we are little further forward than when we started, goodness knows how many trees have been used in reports and documentation! The latest 55,000 pages of repetition. Our village, a ‘significant rural settlement’ pop. 1700 approx., is and always will be a ‘dormitory’ for Hinkley Point construction and operational personnel, it is also a major access transit point for personnel living on the south side of the Quantock Hills. Any traffic to HPC from Williton (well mentioned in the consultation) passes via Nether Stowey as the nearest access road with any width at all, yet there has been no mention in any consultation of the fact that Nether Stowey even exists or what problems we will face."

Richard Palmer
"That a power station will be built is out of my hands.How it is built, and how the logistics for the build are delt with is. For the long term protection of the area E.D.F. and the govoment must build a dulal carriageway from junction 23 of the M5 directly to Hinckly and beond to Minhead. The A39 will not cope with the extrer traffic,you know this and the only reason for not doing the propper route is cost.Many people will die if you keep to your plans. You must do the right route for the welbeing of the people and Somerset."

Suzanne Williams
"As a resident of Bristol I am concerned that dangerous waste from the new hinkley power plant will be travelling through the city. Bristol city council does not have a suitable evacuation plan if anything does go wrong with the power plant or the waste. I am also generally against nuclear power as a power source and believe that EDF have in sufficient plans for storing highly toxic waste."

Sue Lloyd
"This is the wrong place to build another nuclear power station. a) Space limits mean it has to be built much closer to people's homes; agricultural quality land will be lost and the nature reserve is being destroyed. b) In the decades since the present stations were built, traffic on the narrow, winding roads has increased hugely. West Somerset now relies on tourism, yet the approaches from Bridgewater and Bristol (the only approaches) will be congested by construction traffic and construction workers for at least fifteen years, probably more. Any radioactive waste released into the sea will deter holiday-makers from visiting our seaside resorts. c) EDF is the wrong company: it is heavily in debt and may not complete the work. Its new nuclear stations in France and Finland are way behind schedule and safety concerns have not been allayed. The design is antiquated and uses uranium, which has to be mined and transported here, rather than thorium, which is less radioactive. d) West Somerset is deprived in terms of employment, yet most workers will have to be imported. They will take up housing that is needed for local people; they will use rooms needed for tourists, if any are resolute enough to brave the traffic. e) radioactive waste is to be stored here for at least 160 years, maybe more as this problem has yet to be resolved. Rising sea levels, human error and terrorist threats are a concern. f) the electricity produced will not be used locally: it will travel hundreds of mile, losing energy in the process. A Severn barrage would be perferable on this and many other counts. f) from a personal point of view, if any Fukushima-type disaster occurred (and human error, if not earthquakes, is international), I would be unable to continue my work as I work from home. And this beautiful part of England would be destroyed for ever."

Mrs Marion I Hyam
"I do agree with the need for Hinkley Point C. My main concerns are: _ Increase in traffic over the construction period and beyond. _Increased population of the village with workers and park and ride congestion . _For safety reasons we need a northern bypass before commencement of Hinkley Point C. The Western bypass is close to our house so this causes problems such as:_ Noise, increase lights, pollution, environmental issues and decreased value in property."

Robert Craig
"I and my family live down wind of the proposed nuclear power station. Fukushima should not have happened but it did"

Paul Gripton
"With regard to EDF's DCO Application for HPC, i wish to make the following comments - There are five important changes for the Combwich proposals that have appeared in the application since the consultations which have significant consequences. 1. Increase in the number of AIL's through Combwich Wharf - now at least 330, not the 180 constantly quoted. The AIL's are the priority and means that much of the first four years of use at Combwich will be only these large loads , with few if any 'other goods' imported - hence, why the need for an 'other goods' laydown area at Combwich ? 2. Other goods now to be imported via the Sea Jetty at Hinkley Point, with the possible use of redundant areas at HPA etc for storage. 3. Huge increase in the quantity of materials to be transported (by road) just to build and remove the Combwich facilities. At Stage one it was 124,000 tonnes,February 2011 it was 317,117 tonnes but in the DCO Application this had risen to 933,564 tonnes. This will require approximately 60,000 vehicle movements to build and 45,000 to remove. Vast areas will now be 'Pile driven'. The concrete paved area of 10.1 hectares raised to 7m AOD and will now take four years to return to agricultural use. The environmental, economic and social costs will be severe and must call into question any Justification or Rationale for the Freight Management Strategy, a laydown facility and a new goods wharf at Combwich. 4. EDF have finally admitted in the Application, that shipping movements in and out of Combwich Wharf and other operations,will now with regard to Noise, have a 'Significant, Unmitigated, Major Adverse Effect' . EDF's plans for seven days a week operations, with deliveries at night, must be restricted, considering the close residential community near the Wharf. 5. Road Freight use at Combwich has reappeared in the DCO Application, having been missing at the last Stage 2 update consultation. There are conflicting descriptions of this use in the Application but it is clear that Combwich is now being considered as a 'Freight Logistics and De-consolidation' facility. EDF could not have chosen a more expensive location at which to site any proposals and i hope the justification and rationale will be fully examined. Whilst accepting that the AIL's will come through Combwich Wharf, i wish to strongly object or comment on the following proposals at Combwich - New Goods Wharf, the permanent berthing bed, the laydown facilities (even the AIL storage area will have to be justified - further explanation will follow at the examination),Traffic and Transport issues, Effect on leisure activities, Any 'nuisance' situation, Hours of Use and operations etc.- including any restrictions / requirements to take account of 'Residential Amenity', Flooding and Environmental Issues. The local communities in and around Combwich are also subject to great change due to the Coastal Habitat major infrastructure projects by the Bristol Port Company and the Environment Agency, and any cumulative effects should be considered. I hope the IPC will examine the circumstances of site selection for the Combwich laydown area and in particular compliance with PPS25 and evidence on the requirements for the Sequential Tests having been met. (see NPS - EN1) - I challenge EDF's evidence and will explain at a later opportunity. The consequencies of poor site selection at a high flood risk location are becoming clear. Combwich laydown area is inappropriate development and there are 'reasonably available' alternative sites such as at Hinkley Point etc. The Combwich proposals are complicated and far ranging and i request that the IPC consider Specific hearings with sufficient time to properly examine the issues and that local policies in addition to the National Policy Statements be considered. P Gripton."

Mr Anthony C Hyam
"My main worry is traffic congestion around the village and surrounding area."

Melody Strachan
"I disagree with the application due to the possible danger and inherant health effects of nuclear power processing. We should be investing in alternative, renwablw, power provision."

Margery Coughlan
"Whilst accepting that Hinkley Point expansion is probably a foregone conclusion I would like to express my disgust at the manner in which EDF is riding roughshod over the genuine concerns expressed by local people who cannot see the logic behind EDF's proposal not to build a new access road to Hinkley Point until construction at the site is complete. They show a wilful lack of understanding of the problems which will be faced by users and residents of the main road (High Street) between the roundabout at the end of the existing bypass and Rodway Hill. The corner of High Street and Rodway is already difficult to cross as a pedestrian at busy times and will become impossible. Bridgwater College (Cannington site) is also on this corner and the proposed alterations to this area will not be enough to reduce the hazard. Traffic already speeds down Rodway Hill ignoring the speed limit, and there is no proposal for traffic calming measures. A road from Dunball across the river to the far end of Rodway Hill is the only way forward if Cannington is not to be destroyed by lack of foresight and a penny pinching attitude by EDF. Residents of the village are not going to accept their weasel words about development of the area and extra amenities which will be left behind once construction has finished as if the havoc they are about to create is is fact doing us a favour! Margery Coughlan"

David Pope
"As a frequent user of the A39 I am concerned that the road between Bridgwater & Cannington is going to be used as a major feeder road for Hinkley Point power station. This road is not designed to handle a project of such a large scale. In the interests of public health & safety other plans should be used. If the A39 becomes blocked between Bridgwater & Cannington emergency services will have great difficulty going in ether direction ether for Hinkley point or for a member of the local community. Iam fully in agreement with the project except for not having the correct road infrustucture to suppot it and the local area. A link road is required from Dunball to Cannington."

Jonathan Paul Tansley
"I live and work within the area affected by the proposed Nuclear power station. I am concerned about the increase of traffic within the village where I live and how it will efect the village itself and my own business. I am also concerned about the environmental issues and the long term effect the proposed build will have on the local economy. I have grave concerns concerning overcrowding in the village especially when parking is at a premium."

Brian John Sparks
"We have lived in Combwich for over 10 years and are very close to the Wharf. The planned developments for this area are unnecessarily evasive, unnecessarily excessive and present a 'David versus Goliath' principle. Why build a freight laydown facility on the flood plain when other more suitable sites are available? At the EDF consultation, their representative advised us we need it if necessary .... no real plans made for actual sized objects. just guesswork. Why is it necessary to build this development on a flood plain? This may create problem for the local vicinity once constructed. I am concerned at the huge impact of noise and light pollution that the alterations to the wharf will create alongside the inordinate use this wharf will have over time. It will destroy the tranquility of so much of this village. Why build and develop here when another similar site is being built and developed closer to the HP site.? The impact on Combwich residents is immeasurable - light and noise pollution, evening workings, vibration, access etc. Those who live close to the wharf will have a number of intolerable circumstances imposed upon their very long term everyday living. It is important that Combwich residents are allowed to live their lives as 'normal' as possible. This will be very difficult -especially for the older members of the community. It is vital EDF do everything in their power to reduce working hours as well as supply local homes with sound insulation, triple glazing etc to reduce such impact which will be regular and excessive. 10 year of disruption and inconvenience needs compensation to local residents. The increased traffic in the area will make life unbearable for all Combwich residents. The village junction with the C182 needs further investigation. Otherwise Combwich will become a 'hell holed' bottleneck - attacked from land and sea by invasive and high volume means making it almost impossible to leave the village at most times of the day! This is a horrendous scenario and one that needs more thought and investigation."

Robert & Lyn Palmer
"Our concerns are mainly about the following issues: - Why build a freight laydown facility on the flood plain when there are other sites available including at the main construction site. The 10.1 hectare site (over 20 football pitches) will need to be raised by almost a meter and require 933,000 tons of material (including the building of the Wharf) to build. It is estimated that this will require 60,000 road vehicle movements before the Cannington by-pass is built. - Why does EDF need a road haulage laydown facility at Combwich which will add vehicle movements and be immensely costly to build and disruptive to the local community? - OPC has accepted the need for AIL’s (large indivisible loads) to be brought in by the Wharf, but why is it necessary to have a goods wharf when a similar facility is to be built at the main construction site? - The wharf is in the centre of the village and will create serious noise and light pollution during construction and use for nearby residents. - The loss of tranquillity and the impact of noise, vibration, lighting and access issues concerning the wharf and footpaths on leisure activities. - The amount of traffic that will use the C182 (Hinkley Road) and the impact on the junctions to Combwich and Otterhampton. The difficulty of getting through Cannington before the by-pass is built and the horrendous impact on Bridgwater without a northern by-pass. Over 1,000 vehicles a day will pass the end of the village each way to and from Hinkley Point (a total of over 2000 vehicle movements a day) according to EDF’s own figures. It seems to us that EDF are riding rough shod over the majority of the villagers wishes and have no regard whatsoever for the environment. EDF are certainly aware of the strong feelings of the majority of people within our Parish and Bridgwater. However, their attitude during the farce consultation period has been arrogantly appalling. In this regard the IPC should force EDF to consider less damaging alternatives."

Claire Gibson
"I live in the Bridgwater area and will be affected by the building process if this proposal is approved. I work for the local Member of Parliament."

Tracey Harris on behalf of Ian Greenslade
"I am concerned regarding the level of traffic this new Power Station would generate and the affect this would have on the local people of Cannington and Bridgwater. The roads are not designed to carry the amount of traffic, and the infrastructure is not established, to support this development. This will have a huge affect for local people. I have been approached regarding a compulsory buy of my land which is on a green belt area just outside of Cannington"

Rhys Iestyn Tucker
"My representation to the examination considers whether EDF is fit and capable to complete the application since building and operating a nuclear power station is huge, complicated and serious endeavour. Considering EDF's fitness and capability engages all aspects of the application. 1. Finances. EDF is heavily in debt. EDF is in debt in the region of E35billion on a turnover in the region of E64billion. I submit that the proportion of debt to turnover suggests that EDF is not conducting it's business efficiently. Such a level and proportion of debt is expensive - even at current low interest rates - and it is the consumer that eventually pays for such inefficiencies. Further investigation needs to consider EDF's credit rating, etc. 2. Capability QUOTE FROM http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/jul/22/nuclear-power-cost-delay-edf STARTS Time is money, they say, and the new nuclear power plant being built by EDF at Flamanville in France is now at least four years behind time and €2.7bn over budget. EDF blamed the delay on two fatal construction accidents and dealing with safety analyses prompted by the Fukushima disaster. ... QUOTE ENDS On the evidence of EDF's other projects, serious doubts are raised regarding EDF's ability to satisfy time and budget constraints. 3. Anti-democratic activities. In November 2011 EDF was found guilty of spying on Greenpeace France. QUOTE FROM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/8882452/EDF-found-guilty-of-spying-on-Greenpeace-France.html BEGINS ... When EDF was first charged with spying in 2009, the French environment minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, said "if by extraordinary chance this is true, what type of country are we living in?" Its head of nuclear production security in 2006, Pascal Durieux, was given a three-year sentence with two years suspended, and a 10,000-euro fine for ordering the spying. The court in Nanterre, outside Paris, also sentenced his number two in 2006, Pierre-Paul François, to three years, with 30 months suspended. EDF was ordered to pay 500,000 euros in damages to Greenpeace. ... QUOTE ENDS QUOTE FROM SAME SOURCE BEGINS ... During the trial, EDF had insisted that it had not sanctioned the hacking, saying it had asked Kargus to simply "monitor" Greenpeace's activities, particular regarding Flamanville, but that the agency had "overstepped" the terms of the contract. Kargus was also ordered to find out about Greenpeace France's intentions and its plan to block new nuclear plants in the UK. The agency hacked Mr Jadot's computer, taking 1,400 documents. ... QUOTE ENDS The preceding quotes indicate that EDF has engaged in activities opposed to democracy relating directly to the proposed Hinkley Point C development. I submit that this incident raises serious concerns regarding EDF being fit and proper to engage in this project as proposed. SUMMARY It is recognised that the building and operation of a nuclear power station is a huge, complicated and serious endeavour. I submit that EDF's financial situation, past evidence of capability and engagement in activities opposed to democracy suggest that EDF is not a fit and proper party to initiate the proposed development of a nuclear power station in UK."

Tine Landy
"· I believe that the permission to carry on with the construction of the Hinkley Point Nuclear Reactor will have a very negative effect on the local environment. In terms of traffic. The roads in the area are not build to carry the amount of lorries needed to complete the construction. It will create far too much traffic in the area, as there is no bypass planned for the area to help witht the heavy traffic. · Also I don’t believe an efficient evacuation plan is in place should it happen that the site experiences an accident. It will be very difficult for people to get away from the area,"

Christopher Gifford
"Consultation with the public will remain inadequate for informed consent until the worst effects of the possible loss of control of the reactors and spent fuel stores are described. Detail of the proposed on-site storage must include the activity levels of the waste, the expected volumes, the method of cooling and the precautions against loss of power supplies and the effects of hostile attack on the site proposed.. One criterion for long term disposal, that the government is satisfied that safe and effective methods of containment and safe methods of transport from Hinkley Point will exist, lacks convincing evidence. Any such satisfaction lacks support in the technical and science literature. I have evidence for the Commission in my conclusions of my review of the 23 papers in Geological Repository Systems for the Safe Disposal of Spent Fuel Nuclear Waste published in Materials World, the journal of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, and in my recent paper Fukushima V4. Further evidence on the provision of safe systems of work at Hinkley Point is contained in my evidence to the public inquiry into the first proposed Hinkley Point C power station. The possible effects of the proposed power station and waste storage site on the surrounding area seem not to have been fully evaluated and published. They include a development blight deterring business and residential development with falling property values. Geological Repository Systems for the Safe Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuels and Radioactive Waste Edited by Joonhong Ahn and Michael J Apted. Woodhead Publishing Ltd 2010. 762pp ISBN 9781845695422. Price £180. Published in Materials World Vol 10 No 2 February 2001 Gifford, C, Proofs of Evidence Inquiry Document References CG1 and CG2. The Transcript of the Proceedings of the Hinkley Point 'C' Nuclear Power Station Public Inquiry for Day 89 22 3 89 Social Studies Library The University of Wales, Colum Road, Cardiff UK"

Roger Shepherd
"concerned about road congestion, which could have adverse effect on my building business"

Neil Lush
"The increased volume of construction traffic through the village of Cannington is my primary concern with the application for Hinckley Point C. I have lived on the Main Road in Cannington for 46 years and have seen significant increases in the volume of traffic at peak times during this period. In my view it would be devastating to the local community if planning permission was granted without ensuring that the village of Cannington was bypassed. The impact on the quality of village life as well as the safety aspect is of real concern."

Muriel Spenceley
"I disagree with the application for Hinkley C. I feel very strongly about using forms of energy generation that are more harmonious with nature - that do not create highly toxic bi-products that pollute the planet with long term implications. I am also uneasy about the safety of nuclear energy - with so many people, including myself, living so close to the proposed plant, it is us who could potentially lose our homes or face ill-health if a Fukushima-style event occurred here. This is not worth the risk. I feel we need to re-think energy generation with respect to the long term well-being of people and planet, and that the time of nuclear energy is over. Let money not be the primary value here, but well-being. Thank you."

Katie Phelan-Player
"1) Congestion - impact on health and safety of hundreds of HGVs going through Glastonbury (and other towns) The route through Glastonbury goes past several of our major tourist sites. There are 2 zebra crossings on over a mile of route through the town. We have to get children safely to school. There will also be pollution. Vibration will effect ancient listed buildings along route. 2) Environmental Impact - Hinkley Point includes SSSI The Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) target to have 95% of the SSSI area in favourable or recovering condition by 20103Removal of Woodlands and Hedges affecting habitat for a variety of protected species. The legislation is there to ensure conservation of that area. Health - there is now scientific evidence that the act of building nuclear power stations causes childhood cancer clusters. Once built the impact of chronic low level radiation exposure on health and the local ecology is being ignored. Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in the estuary, e.g Bridgwater Bay mudflats. EDF's record - EDF have 3 EPR build projects with design and construction problems resulting in time and cost over-runs at Flamanville (France), Olkiluoto (Finland) and Taishan (China) NNB Genco Ltd are not experienced at building nuclear power stations EDF have 2 pressurized reactors running late with design faults and have not yet successfully completed this type of project. EDF have been giving ‘sweeteners' to local schools and businesses, and have stifled and tried to control the anti-nuclear point of view. EDF is the most complained about energy company - my home was involved in a voltage incident which led to fire and I was shocked at their complacency - they expect things to go wrong. Safety - lack of long term planning for things going wrong. No evacuation plans, no long term storage for waste. No understanding of the long view - the Bristol channel is Tsunami prone and earthquakes have happened locally. There is no planning for this, or for the huge area that would be effected (most of the Levels are under sea level)"

John Staddon
"My principal concern is the legacy of radio-active nuclear waste from the proposed development which inevitably will accumulate to remain either on-site or carted away to 'somewhere' else, to be a critical hazard to the health of generations to come, an issue invariably fudged by nuclear power proponents. The nuclear industry is still no nearer to a fail-safe scientific resolution for disposal nor to funding the cost of such. Indeed, regarding cost the Government's Energy Secretary last October when addressing the Royal Society said "Nuclear policy is a runner to be the most expensive failure of post-war British policy-making.""

N Laing
"THE LAND AT THE TOWN OF COMWICH CALLED THE PILL IS WHERE MY BOAT IS BERTH AND WILL GIVE NO OR RESTRICTED USE IN MY SAILING. I HAVE A 26 FOOT YACHT AND I AM HAPPY TO OFFER WHAT HELP I CAN IN THIS SITUATION."

Margaret Markwick
"My concerns:- This is a potentially dangerous development in an ecologically sensitive area, near to areas of dense population. The German response to the Fukushima disaster was to halt all nuclear fuel projects. Even without an accident on that scale, the damage to the ecology of the area will be significant. There is inadequate provision for access to the site for the construction period. The heavy traffic involved will blight the area for many years, and the sheer weight of the lorries will damage the infrastructure of the surrounding villages. The jobs that will be created will not be jobs for local people, and the influx will distort the housing market. Alternative energy sources have been dismissed out of hand, when they would be less polluting, have less impact on the ecosystem, and cost less."

Andrew Tiffin
"I wish to object to the proposed nuclear power station that is planned to be built at Hinckley Point. Despite warning from atomic scientists we are still proposing to go forward with construction of a power station that is hazardous to life, both flora and fauna. Whenever there is a, thankfully rare, accident such as in Japan in 2011 and in Chernoble many years ago we hear afterwards what could have been done to prevent this. However, no one is prepared to spend the time or resources to actually improve the safety of other power stations. We cannot dispose of old nuclear fuel, we simply leave it as a legacy for future generations. The thought of a nuclear power station within 500 miles of my home fills me with dread. Please let common sense, and not profits, prevail."

Peter Roche
"In order to maximise the economic benefit to South West England it is essential that spending allocated to the energy sector is spent on the most effective options. If instead we spend these limited resources on expensive options which are slow to be implemented we will, in effect, be worsening the local economic situation because each pound spent is buying less economic benefit than it would do if it were to spent it on more effective measures. Diverting investment from cheaper market winners, such as energy efficiency, combined heat and power, and renewables, to nuclear power means less economic benefit for every pound spent. For example EDF Energy most recent estimate for the cost of its proposed Hinkley C reactors is equivalent to $4,260/kW. Industrial CHP could provide the same amount of electricity for a cost of around $736/kW. Micro-CHP could do the same, by 2020 at a marginal cost of around $940/kW, by replacing central heating boilers as and when they require replacement. Similarly building new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point is probably the worst energy strategy we could choose in terms of job creation. Building Hinkley Point C could actually kill jobs by creating far fewer jobs than would be created if the money were spent on alternative economic strategies in the South-West. Nuclear power is likely to detract attention from the far greater job creating potential of other industries around Hinkley Point, such as the offshore renewable industry, and may actually dissuade companies from setting up in those areas, and could damage existing industry, such as tourism and agriculture, which rely on an areas reputation for a clean environment to attract business. Merlin Hyman, the chief executive of Regen SW – the renewable energy agency for south west England warns that government policy might allow Scotland to steal a march on the English regions in green job creation. More government money is being invested in developing ports and infrastructure for renewable energy in Scotland (£70 million) than in the whole of England and Wales (£60 million) – even though South West England alone has an economy the size of Scotland’s."

David Gillam
"I am concerned about the following issues: Impact of chronic low level radiation exposure on health and the local ecology including that of South & West Wales is being ignored. Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in estuaries, e.g Bridgwater Bay mudflats, estuaries and mudflats in South & West Wales. Monitoring and reporting of radioactive discharges is unacceptable Local Health issues, ie an increased risk of leukemia has been found around nuclear installations in UK & Europe. The evidence from Fukushima shows that the pathways for radionuclides to appear in the food chain and be consumed by the human population are clearly poorly understood The storage of waste & spent fuel was a major contributor to the problems at Fukushima and release of radiation into the environment. At Hinkley the storage area ponds not designed yet. Hinkley only has a 7 year storage capacity? High level Waste Storage facility, we have not had that before at Hinkley. Cooling of Spent Waste how will this be done? The Evacuation Plans are clearly inadequate in the light of Fukushima Evacuation plans in the event of any catastrophe doesn't appear to be in the EDF application. If there is an emergency on site, trying to get out on one road. If B station has an accident while C is being built EDF doesn't have evacuation procedure for the workers."

R A Morse
"I have lived in Chilton Trinity for 7 years, what attracted us to the village was the fact the village was small and very quiet, no noise from traffic, very few cars, with lots of walkers and horses passing our frontage. I have heard that a new bypass road is badly needed to link the motorway up with the Hinkley C project, I agree we do need a new road as the traffic will be at a gridlock. But I do not want a new road right next the village as it will ruin it. plus if it is built it will probably take 5 years to build and by then half of the Hinkley project would be built by then anyway. I know years ago their was talk of a bridge being built up between dunball and Pawlett which would go accross fields toward combwich. At Chilton we have numerous wildlife ponds and various rare wildlife and if you build a road to near to the village it will ruin lots of habitats. If the road was built further out to sea, their would be less disruption for everyone. less houses and farms and people the only disruption would be to a few farmers whom I am sure will be paid generously for their land. The last thing the village needs is a new road going through it, which presumably would mean 1000's of houses being built either side of it like the NDR road now and street lights, I would of thought that Bridgwater has built enough houses at present and within the past few years to meet its quota, plus the land the road will be going through is liable to flood. We have no street lights in the village and do not want any, its bad enough with the light pollution we have from the Express Park. We want Chilton Trinity Village to stay a quaint village and not be sandwiched in and be part of Bridgwater main town."

Robert Dibble
"I am concerned about the infrostructure of the locality and the environmental impact including the loss of amenities. Jobs should be given to the local population. I am not against nuclear power."

Nicola Bower
"Although I am in agreement with nuclear energy as a power source I feel that the construction at Hinckley Point is going to have a devastating effect upon the local roads and communities. As the construction could take up to 10 years a Northern link road should be planned bypassing Bridgwater, Cannington and villages etc en route. In the scheme of things this is costly but not in relation to the total cost of the construction process. It may take time to construct but the road could feasibly be completed within two years which would take pressure off the area in the longer term. It would also mean that a road link was in place for any future enhancements of the site. There are many implications both for the local people and also the construction staff if this link road is not included as the local roads already struggle with traffic build ups. There could be delays in getting supplies to the site, local people will suffer if emergency services are hampered in trying to reach these areas and it could also have a devastating effect upon the number of visitors to the area. Also surely any health and safety measures for this construction should take account of the after effects of any accident at the plant - it should not be considered low risk as we have seen from other plants eg Japan where the unexpected can happen. Again the infrastructure would not allow for safe evacuation either of local people or the workers on the site who EDF are duty bound as employers to protect."

Roger Farnfield
"I believe that insufficient consideration has been given to the disruption of surrounding villages during what will be a lengthy construction & commissioning activity."

Sylvia Staddon
"My main objection is regarding the nuclear waste. This could cause problems for the health of people in years to come and storing and or disposing of it will cause massive expense in the years . We CANNOT leave it for our children and their children and on to have to deal this with but NO ONE can put hand on heart swear that will NOT happen if this development takes place. Being a realist too, I imagine that any power wanting to destroy this country would have an obvious target."

Gerry Barnett
"Firstly, I believe that another nuclear power plant is expensive and not in any way a green solution to the UK's energy needs, considering the amount of CO2 which is produced in its construction and maintenance. If there were the political will, we could be using 100% renewable energy, which is necessary in the long-term. Secondly, the long-term risks of releasing radioactive waste into the sea and the air are not fully understood, and on those grounds alone one could argue that such a huge development was ethically suspect. What is is unacceptable to me, as a local person living in Glastonbury, is the risk of terrorist attack of the site, and the possibility of widespread devastation and no-go zones to the people of the whole of the South West, should there be an accident. If the risk is so small, then I ask why EDF itself does not underwrite the risks and take full financial responsibility for any clean-up operation if there is an accident?"

Dawn Griffin
"I am a local business owner who has been kept abreast of the application via our Chamber of Commerce. My representation would be the enormous boost the project would give to local businesses if they were to be engaged by the main contractor. My business is a contract catering business who provide quality catering of all sorts from in house facilities through to high end weddings. We have expressed an interest in any catering contracts which may become available at the project. Although my cynical side tells me that the main contractor will appoint a national firm to fill it needs I retain the hope that some of this business may filter down in the local market. Assuming all safety issues are dealt with and resolved satisfactorily this project has to be good for the local people and businesses (probably not mine) but the people of Bridgwater and around should benefit enormously. I dont understand the environmental impact but would still support such a project on the basis of human interest in an area where there is real hardship."

Cam Machine Components Ltd
"My company supports the application. Despite the Japanese disaster, I know EDF will build a station that is implicitly safe. More importantly, nuclear is the "green" way forwards rather than burning fossil fuels to create electricity with the ever increasing demand for power."

Stephen Pearman
"This project is necessary. We need to secure the future of our energy needs and Nuclear is the only realistic option. Building new sites that can take avantage of existing infrastructure is obvious and EDF (ex BE) has a fantastic safety track record in operating such sites."

Porton Construction Management
"I agree with the submission on the grounds of economic growth to the south west and also the support that local businesses will get through this application."

Wood Wise Trading Ltd
"I believe that the development and expansion of the Nuclear site means the project will be an extremely powerful stimulus for skills for the local economy and a critical part of the need for secure energy in the UK. The local community has suffered over the past 15 years with closure of large companies. This project could enhance the opotunities for other companies to understand the potential of the South West. Majority of companies in the SW are of a small to medium nature and most of the produce is exported around the country or abroad the EDF concept will enable companies to supply the South West and therefor will attract larger companies into the area as the local economy grows. The infa structure needs to be palnned and developed and I feel this should be used to coincide with the development of the A39 through to N Devon, creating fast routes for business's attracting companies deeper into the SW."

Peter Rixon
"The core of my objection is that nuclear power generation is highly dangerous and the damage it causes has long-term effects, not just for the local area but globally. The power station is also unnecessary in the sense that we can source our energy from other conventional as well as alternative means. Nuclear power generation is also cost-ineffcient and the mining for the raw substances causes substantial CO2 emissions."

Summer Lodge Country House Hotel (Red Carnation Hotels)
"I agree with and support this application in it's entirety."

Avalon Surfacing & Construction Company Limited
"Having read the Application from the Somerset Chamber of Commerce, we would like to confirm that we are in agreement with their point of view and,although we realise that there is still work to be done in order to minimise any detrimental effect on local parties, we believe that Somerset will benefit enormously from the proposed new development."

R Cuttell
"I am in general agreement with the use of nuclear power and the construction of HPC but do not agree with all their methods and statements. The use of the word "temporary" is used throughout the application.The dictionary definition of temporary is "Lasting, used, serving, or enjoyed for a limited time." I do not believe the disruption to the local community can or should be classified in this way. A build programme in excess of 8 years with associated noise,dust,pollution,increased traffic and potential anti-social behaviour is not temporary. The mitigation does not reflect the major impact on the local inhabitants and the legacy is inadequate for the individuals in the immediate vicinity.Some people have recently moved here to live out the rest of their lives in the peaceful coutryside.To be offered double glazing assumes that windows remain closed and that all outdoor activity will be negatively affected. There has been no monitoring of road noise on the C182 between the Combwich junction and HPC.This road is already noisy especially at the start and finish times of HPA and HPB. This noise will become continuous. In the EA Statement Non -technical Doc Ref 4.1 section 6.4.9 says "During late evening and early morning shift changes ....significant noise impacts would occur between the A39 and the HPC...".Twenty four hour working should not be allowed; the inhabitants will need some quiet time. The Cannington by-pass is to be constructed in 2013. The major infrastructure should be in place before works commence to reduce inconvenience. There has been no justification for an on site campus.The inclusion of 2 outdoor pitches will give rise to extra noise and light pollution and 500 workers has the potential to swamp the area with very limited facilities. Town based accomodation will give the workers access to better facilities and the ability to integrate in to a larger population. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to respect for private and family life and the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property. I doubt if this will be achievable when the largest construction site in Europe is on my doorstep. In light of the jailing of two senior executives of EDF in France for spying on Greenpeace can I be confident that the process conducted in this country for the HPC project has been fair ,unbiased and democratic.The whole process is most complex for an individual to understand and faith has to be put in the various bodies who regulate this project. Already the applicant has been obstructing public footpaths on their land.Once permissions have been obtained for HPC they must be controlled correctly."

Electro South West Ltd
"the local economy needs this project to start sooner, rather then later. we are fully in support of EDF proposals."

Gayle Cairns
"The development of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point is, I believe, beneficial to the local and national environment and economy in the long term. Nuclear power is a proven technology that is well regulated within the UK to ensure it is safe, as evidenced by the recent reports from the Chief Inspector of the ONR. The Secretary of State decision making as part of justification also outlines the wider benefits in terms of mitigating climate change and shows that the technology is safe from the perspective of radiation in the environment and has control over radioactive waste management. On a more local level the development of this power station here will be a great benefit to the economy in the south-west. Nuclear jobs are skilled and well paid and offer great opportunities to local people now and for the long term. As the statiuon will operate for a long time it will bring economic stability to the area. The construction phase will have impacts on local traffoic and services for a short period at the beginning of the station life and it is important that this aspect is closely managed and onvolves the local community. Particular attention should be paid to ensuring that as many local people (particularly women) as possible beenfit from the employment opportunities directly. The devlopment of a green travel plan for the long term operation of the station, including cycling and walking as well as motorised transport should also be focussed on to help benefit the local environment."

Michael Rolfe
"I have no comment to make about the development itself. I live in Cross, Axbridge, near Cheddar. My concerns relate to the impact on the environment and roads. 1. It is said that 20% of materials will be locally resourced. There is therefore likely to be a significant impact on the stone quarries in Shipham Gorge and in Cheddar. The quarries are already large scars on the landscape of an AONB. I can well imagine that resourcing Hinkley will accelerate the process quite dramatically. There should be no erosion of our AONB 2. The road systems around Cheddar and Shipham are not built to carry large numbers of heavy vehicles. The crossroads at the junction of Cross Lane with the A38 at the New Inn Cross, in an accident black-spot. 3.There is no footpath in Cross Lane and so pedestrians walking from Cross to Axbridge take their lives in their own hands. The addition of large numbers of heavy lorries will effectively make walking along Cross Lane not practical and will cut Cross off from Axbridge. It is essential that something is done about creating a footpath at least to the point half way up Cross Lane where there is a public footpath across fields to Axbridge. 4. Traffic on the A38 is heavy between 8 and 9.30am, again between 3.30pm and 6pm and, during the summer from 4pm on Fridays to 8pm on Sundays. Quarry lorries should not operate during these times."

Langlab Resources Ltd
"We desperately need a stimulus for small businessess in the area to enble us to employ and train young people to give them an opportunity to work in the area. The boost to the local economy far outweighs any short term issues. I fully support the application for Hinkley Point C"

C A Blackwell (Contracts) Ltd
"We agree with the application. Blackwell are a national Civil Engineering contractor established since 1956. Following the downturn within the general civil engineering market the company recognised that to maintain a commercial presence, together with maintaining staff and employee commitments we needed to develop the core business into the nuclear and renewable marketplace. We are currently working on several schemes within this area which has resulted in an increase of our employee numbers who in turn have gained valuable training and experience. The knock on effect means that Blackwell is able to contribute to the local economy through purchasing goods and services at a local level together with employing local staff and offering apprenticeships. Blackwell consider that Hinkley Point C would provide a much needed economic benefit not only on a regional basis but on a national basis too, by way of the projects contribution to the local economy and employment and training prospects for the future."

William James Monteith
"The traffic mitigation measures for Bridgwater are seriously flawed. There is a definite, identified need for a northern by pass. There was a strong case for it when Hinkley C was proposed in the 80's. There has been a serious growth in traffic since, yet EDF state that there is no need now. The package of measures aimed at minimising disruption in our town is deficient and will make matters worse. They have looked at their scheme in isolation and have not factored in other developments and issues that will have an impact on their proposals. I feel that the whole issue of traffic management has been played down and could result in irepparable damage to the Town and the West Somerset tourism industry in general."

Graham Granter
"i wish the ipc to to look at the impact the new build power station will have on our town of bridgwater, starting with the failure of edf to discount the need of a northern bypass as with a lot of towns, certain times of the day traffic becomes gridlock in bridgwater that is before the new build of hinkely point c takes place. .given what has happened in other parts of the world regarding the safety of the nucueral industry if a accident happend onsite it would be very diffulct to evacuate the site with the present road sructure.i would ask edf to reconsider its thoughts on the need for new road.on another point the impact of all new housing planned for edf workers. what is needed is a legacy for bridgwater good quilty housing not second rate hostel accomodation."

Clarkson Port Services
"I believe that in these times of trying to reduce our individual carbon footprint and carbon emissions in general, that we should consider nuclear energy as an alternative source of creating carbon free energy. The Hinkley C project would create plenty of much needed new job opportunities in the local and surrounding areas in the short term and for many years to come. I believe that this can only be good in the current climate with recession rearing its ugly head once again."

John Bower
"Although I do not object to the building of a power station I do find it wrong that the developer is not required to build a relief road around the towns and villages. The effect on the local enviornment with the huge amount of works traffic, heavy goods vehicles using the current roads 24/7 will have a dramatic adverse impact on the residents, farm land and general local area. You should ensure the developers build a relief road during the construction phase of the project. Please take my view into consideration. John Bower"

Institute of Directors
"On behalf of the Institute of Directors (IoD) and its 2700 members in the South West region, I am writing to express our support for the proposals for the future development of Hinkley Point C Generating Station as set out in the planning application, IPC Ref EN010001. The IoD South West believes that these plans are good for Somerset and the wider South West region for the following reasons: 1. For the region to thrive, economically and as a place to live, it is important that the region is well provided for in terms of future energy needs. Moreover these energy needs should be met by a mix of low carbon and renewable energy sources (and nuclear in particular), according to an IoD member survey carried out in November 2009. 2. The Hinkley Point C project will create a significant amount of wealth and new employment opportunities to the area both during construction and following completion. As well as being of benefit to the wider regional economy, the project would be particularly welcome in a part of Somerset where an increase in the number of well paid, skilled jobs will have a positive impact on the local economy and community. Many more people throughout the area work in businesses that would derive some or all of their income from the supporting activity associated with Hinkley Point. 3. The planning application sets out a considered approach to the project, balancing economic development with environmental and community concerns. The plan reflects concerns expressed during consultation and includes many positive initiatives in respect of safety of design and environmental impact. The IoD would like to emphasise the key importance for the continued positive development of the South West economy that we have a dependable mix of low carbon sources of power generation capable of fully serving the region’s anticipated future requirements. IoD carried out a survey of 1,798 members in March 2010. We asked the question: “Do you think that new nuclear power stations should be built in the UK?” An overwhelming majority of 85% were in support. In view of the many positive benefits in terms of business and employment opportunities that Hinkley Point C will bring, I would urge the IPC to support the development plans in the interests of the local area, the region and everyone’s future."

David Sainsbury
"I would like to retain the use of mooring my boat in Combwich Pill and have unrestricted access to the Bristol Channel via the River Parrett. No restriction has ever been imposed before."

Churton Inge Associates
"My motivation in joining this essentially democratic process is to register my approval, on balance, of the application to build a new-technology nuclear power station on the existing site at Hinkley Point, but at the same time to suggest that there are demerits and problems which will need addressing to secure unqualified support. The environmental argument against development has been well rehearsed, those in support less so. I would suggest that this imbalance reflects media sympathy with the naysayers, and that it would be in the applicants' interest better to describe the safeguards for wildlife and against an escape of the contaminated water used in the cooling process. The technology and design of the plant may be light years ahead of Fukushima but the scientific principle at its heart is the same. Still with the environment, the application as it stands makes too little of the disruption to local life during construction, and the impact on the villages surrounding the plant. Too much attention has been focused on Bridgwater to the detriment of the countryside. The overwhelming argument in favour, as far as my business is concerned, is the determination of EDF to use local firms and local labour wherever possible, and to join early with the Somerset Chamber of Commerce to publicise this ambition and promote it to the grass-roots. If EDF couple this local commercial outreach with a helping hand for Sedgemoor District Council it will demonstrate a comprehensive sensitivity to local need which will sway opponents. At the moment the Council feels out in the cold; uncertain about the impact of the construction phase or whether sufficient is being offered as a trade-off in Section 106 agreements. More transparency is needed, with a greater preparedness to listen to the fears and suggestions of the locals' democratically elected representatives."

Roger Tibbles
"I think the Station should be built as the local community will greatly benefit. The transport is a problem but the short term congestion should not a cause for not building the Station."

Ian Rix
"Nuclear Power will not bridge the energy gap. Only investment in renewables and better insulation will work. For this development I am concerned about: ?Effects of construction traffic ?Effects on landscape and the local environment ?Lack of economic benefit ?Effect on local services ?Lack of adequate emergency planning"

Stability Solutions Ltd
"I agree with the applications"

Richard Webber
"I agree with the development and want to know how soon it will start."

P E Olson
"The UK demand for electricity is growing and the only viable option is Nuclear. Building new capacity at Hinckley Point is a logical decision. Renewable or "green" alternatives are not economically viable and do not provide reliable, consistent power generation. Bridgwater and its environs have high unemployment. Many of the existing jobs are low skilled and low paid. The construction of the new generators will provide many jobs and be vital to the re-generation of the area. The building of a new road and bridge linking Dunball to Cannington will address many of the trafic concerns."

Roy Pumfrey
"I object to the following aspects of the Application on the grounds stated: The HPC Development site will house an untested reactor type which does not meet all the UK safety standards. The proposals for storage and removal of waste radioactive material are not fully developed. The site is inappropriate in view of Environment Agency projections of flood risk for the Severn Estuary. The applicant cannot justify an onsite campus unless its transport strategy is itself flawed. Workforce projections are purely conjectural and the benefit to local work-seekers continues to decline by the applicant’s own admission from 50% of workforce to no more than 30%. The Accommodation strategy will put an unhealthy and unnatural pressure on the local housing market, both owned and rented, making it impossible for local people to find affordable property to buy or rent. Bridgwater A accommodation proposes totally inadequate leisure facilities with complete absence of any legacy housing stock. Bridgwater C campus requires the loss of covenanted sports facilities within walking distance of the town centre. Transport strategy is totally inadequate. The desperate need for a northern haul road/bypass from a point north of Bridgwater which would provide alternative emergency access to an enormous building site has been ignored. The inadequate Cannington by-pass proposed will not be built until site preparation works are complete, putting intolerable pressure on all routes between the M5 and the site. The proposed ‘Highway Improvements’ in and around Bridgwater will only increase the prospect of total gridlock in and around the town centre. They would themselves have to be constructed concurrently with site preparation works, causing further chaos. Experience elsewhere, on the 2012 Olympic site in London, demonstrates that even though a jetty is built, that does not mean that hauliers will use it. The jetty on the Thames that was supposed to reduce haulage of materials has proved to be a gigantic white elephant. Proposed development at M5 Junction 24 will be ready before that at Junction 23. Proposed ‘junction hopping’ to equalise HGV journeys from the north and south through Bridgwater is completely contrary to Highways Agency strictures on motorway usage. Improving Combwich wharf will lead to 24 hour noise, particle and light pollution issues. It will be impossible for any local resident to have any idea whether proposed working hour arrangements are being adhered to. No one will know whether the HGV that passes them in the middle of the night is involved in work determined by tide times or is just doing a bit of overtime. The proposed Community Benefits and Mitigation are completely inadequate and simply self serving. They blatantly ignore the likely lifespan of the power station during operation and decommissioning, particularly as the Government has as yet no meaningful strategy for the extremely expensive and long term storage/removal of the highly radioactive nuclear waste materials. I object as stated in outline above and look forward to the opportunity to provide more detailed argument as the IPC hearings progress."

Steven Hendy
"I believe this application to be good for the local area as it will encourage jobs and boost the economy for many years to come. I can remember the last phase of building at Hinckley Point and it did give a boost for the local economy."

Leigh Redman
"Following the publication of the plans for the new power station at Hinkley point I note the proposed development of the accommodation blocks within Bridgwater specifically the development on the old Cellophane site, I am a user of the playing fields that the complex will be built on. I am concerned that there appears to be no consideration for future playing fields that will allow us to continue our activities. I would request that full consideration be given to include providing at minimum the same area of playing fields and facilities, these should be in place and usable before the existing areas and provision is stopped by this development. I am also concerned with the road changes around this complex above, the temporary nature of the buildings that will leave no legacy. I am concerned that no bypass for Bridgwater is being included as the number and frequency of vehicles using the town will cause considerable congestion to an already congested town. The influx of people, workers and families will cause problems for an already over stretched town with services, medical, dental, schooling, accommodation, social services, infrastructure and more being affected. I feel the EDF needs to consider in greater detail the impact this proposal will have on Bridgwater and the surrounding area. I would welcome the opportunity to build on my submission at any forum. Leigh Redman Bridgwater Town and Sedgemoor District Councillor"

Jack Mason
"I have some concerns regarding the flood and erosion risk and how it is proposed to be managed. Specifically I would raise the following questions: Does the application clearly show that all historical data has been reviewed in terms of flood risk looking back at least 1000 years. The documents tend to focus on recent data only (1). Is there detailed site specific erosion and deposition information to support the design of the erosion protection of the station? Incomplete data seems to come from 1986 and no new assessment has been undertaken, and the impact of climate change is unclear (2). Data should not be inferred but must be site specific. Has the application considered in detail the flood risk and erosion performance of the adjacent Hinkley Point A and B stations (3,4)? This should be a key source of performance information to inform the new design. Does the application show that the most robust, flexible and sustainable flood risk management option has been selected for the new nuclear station? Is there clear evidence in the reported design process to support the sea wall location and design and comparison with other options (5)? In particular, why are the flood wall and station not located further inland (say 200m from the coast)? Does the application consider how emergency access will be achieved? (6) There have been problems in the past (7) with the existing plants at Hinkley and (particularly with climate change) it is likely that major towns (e.g. Bridgwater) will be cut off from the nuclear plant by land. Where (for example) are Gold and Silver command going to be in the event of an accident. How many site (8) staff could get to work during a major flood? How does the road network work now and in the future? This information is essential and is a material issue in considering the siting of the station. References: 1.Hinkley Point Sediment Transport, Ravensrodd Consultants Ltd (HPC-NNBPEA-XX-000020) page 4 2.Hinkley Point C:Temporary Jetty Development Cliff Stability Assessment Jacobs June 2011 (HPC-NNBPEA-XX-000011) page 5 paragraph 2.3 3.Hinkley Point Sediment Transport, Ravensrodd Consultants Ltd (HPC-NNBPEA-XX-000020) page 7 paragraph 3.1 4.Stategic Siting Assessment for New Nuclear Power Stations: Opportunity to Comment on Site Nominations , Responses by Site : Hinkley Paragraph (User ID) 596 5.Japanese earthquake and tsunami: Implications for the UK Industry Final Report September 2011 page (xii) Recommendation IR-13 & page (xiii) Recommendation IR-16 6.European Council Stress Tests for UK nuclear power plants December 2011 paragraphs 511,512,516,903 7.Stategic Siting Assessment for New Nuclear Power Stations: Opportunity to Comment on Site Nominations , Responses by Site : Hinkley Paragraph (User ID) 61 8.Japanese earthquake and tsunami: Implications for the UK Industry Final Report September 2011 page (xii) Recommendation IR-8"

Paul Dennett
"please do not build this monstrosity on the coast as it will be a blot on the landscape."

Mr R Slade
"I do not agree that this power station should not start being built until relief roads have been built to take the amount of traffic that will pass my house. The preferd route should be from dunball across to meet up with the combwich road,if this is not done the traffic through bridgwater will be horendous especially when traffic is on its way to butlins in minehead. If decissions our not made now it will be to late !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Robin Slade"

Christopher Ford
"I support the proposal to build another nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. I am concerned about the developer's transport plans. They appear to be planning to route 124 buses per day through the village of Stogursey. These buses will pass our primary school and go through our narrow high street. The High Street is effectively single track during large parts of the day and often blocked when deliveries and collections are being made. Examples are domestic heating oil deliveries and refuse collection. Most of the huge amount of traffic generated by the project will travel along the C182 past Claylands Corner. This junction is on the route used by most residents of Stogursey to travel to work, do their shopping, access health facilities and go to secondary school or places of higher education. It is the main route to and from the village. Claylands Corner is a dangerous junction and the proposed improvements do no more than make it slightly less dangerous. The vast increase in traffic proposed for the C182 requires that this junction be greatly improved if the lives of Stogursey people are not to be put in jeopardy."

Stephen L Turner
"My main point is that there should not be any work carried out on the site until a suitable road network is in place to take the volume of traffic involved. This should be at best a dedicated haul road from M5 Junction 23 (Dunball) directly to Hinkley Point. Alternatively, a Bridgwater by pass and Cannington by-pass. At the moment the traffic on the A39 from Bridgwater to Cannington and then through Cannington to Hinkley Point is nose to tail at various times of day and very busy for the rest of the working day, with a projected increase of at least 50% by mid 2013. Most of this increase are said to be Buses and HGV's. By simple Maths this would work out to be a Heavy vehicle passing through Cannington every 40 seconds. This is unacceptable for any community. The village would be gridlocked for much of the day. What would happen in the event of an emergency/accident? In recent times the A39 has been closed several times due to accidents resulting in road Chaos on all back roads in the area because there are no suitable alternative routes. In the event of a road traffic accident and the roads being gridlocked how would emergency vehicles get to Hinkley Point (Hinkley Point A continues to generate and A station is de-commissioning) in the event of a nuclear incident or terrorist threat/attack. No work should be allowed until a suitable route is constructed. . ."

Kathleen Saunders
"DEMOCRACY Nuclear lessons learned Lack of Consultation National Grid impact – Pylons Lack of national debate and lack of enquiries. We haven't had a choice EDF is the most complained about energy company NNB Genco Ltd are not experienced at building nuclear power stations EDF have 2 pressurized reactors running late with design faults and have not yet successfully completed this type of project. HEALTH Impact of chronic low level radiation exposure on health and the local ecology is being ignored. Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in the estuary, e.g Bridgwater Bay mudflats. Monitoring and reporting of radioactive discharges unacceptable (public only given annual average figures) Health issues at Burnham-on-Sea and elsewhere. FLOODING ISSUE There is a 100 year risk in this area and waste storage will be kept on site for at least 160 years."

Richard Tansley
"I live in the area effected by the proposals put forward for Hinkley Point and I fear for the impact the new proposals will have on the village in which I live and on the business I own in the village. I have concerns for the increase in Traffic and the noise generated if the proposals become rerality and for the long term environmental and economical effects it will have on my area"

John Francis Tansley
"I live and work within the area effected by the proposed Hinkley point project and I fear the envireonmental effect it will have on the village in which I live and carry out my business. I have concerns for the huge increase in traffic my village willl experience and the detrimental efect this may have on my business both in the short term and the long term."

Sophie Knock
"I object to the further development of Hinkley Point. I object to the risk of nuclear power to humans, animals and the environment and do not consider it safe enough to warrant development. The problem of nuclear waste has not been resolved and it remains highly contaminated for hundreds of years. Our planet and ecosystem is precious and fragile and the greed and short sightedness of those pushing for this now is based on ignorance of the long term consequences for future generations and for the land which sustains us. I urge you to think about your children and if you don't have any, think about mine and be wise and brave enough to stand against it and the hideous problems it engenders."

J. Clyde-Smith
"Minehead Town Coucillor with a business within the town of Minehead"

Craig Savage
"‘Following the publication of the plans for the new power station at Hinkley point I note the proposed development of the accommodation blocks within Bridgwater specifically the development on the old Cellophane site, I am a user of the playing fields that the complex will be built on. I am concerned that there appears to be no consideration for future playing fields that will allow us to continue our activities. I would request that full consideration be given to include providing at minimum the same area of playing fields and facilities, these should be in place and usable before the existing areas and provision is stopped by this development. Great numbers of people (adults and children) enjoy these facilities every week, any interruption of availability would have a devastating effect on the area and people that use it. To be clear, any preplanning or planning application must ensure that the green areas used within the Bridgwater sports and social club grounds should be replaced with equivalent or better facilities and be 100% operational before the existing provision is removed or developed.’"

Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership
"The Heart of the South West lep is charged with with driving the economy for the counties of Devon and Somerset over the next few years it has real interest in the developement of enmployment skills and supply chain oportunities for the business and communities of the sub region. It is required to work with all developements to asist them them in achieving thier goals , the short and long term needs of th eHinkly developement chime exactlky with The leps obejectives"

Tim Netto
"Following the publication of the plans for the new power station at Hinkley point I note the proposed development of the accommodation blocks within Bridgwater specifically the development on the old Cellophane site, I am a user of the playing fields that the complex will be built on. I am concerned that there appears to be no consideration for future playing fields that will allow us to continue our activities. I would request that full consideration be given to include providing at minimum the same area of playing fields and facilities, these should be in place and usable before the existing areas and provision is stopped by this development. Great numbers of people (adults and children) enjoy these facilities every week, any interruption of availability would have a devastating effect on the area and people that use it. To be clear, any preplanning or planning application must ensure that the green areas used within the Bridgwater sports and social club grounds should be replaced with equivalent or better facilities and be 100% operational before the existing provision is removed or developed."

Dr Isabel Aimee Berkeley
"As a dr of Architecture, i researched the theme of Sustainable development considerably. I am aware that for decades we have possessed alternative strategies for energy creation in the UK and yet we have continued to give Nuclear power- the most unsustainable form - due to the 'beyond toxic' radioactive products created as a by product- credence, space and resources. I object to this land being serviced with yet more radioactive waste. I am a citizen of this country I have childrne and i care deeply about the welfare of my and future generations. NNuclear power has been endlessly shown to be a short-term project with enormously damaging consequences for the future. We are better than this. I do not want any part of the Hinckly point reactor to be extended. i should like to see it shut down as safely as possible decommissioned and wind, wave, HEP and solar used in stead to generate the electricity."

Saxonia Guest House
"I belive it will be good for tourism and job creation and also secure electic suppy for the fucure"

Kuthumi Jon
"I do not agree with the building of the new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point, West Somerset. I am concerned that the planning does not have adequate safety provisions in place for both the local people and those further afield. I am concerned that the planning does not have adequate provisions for tidal waves (which have occurred in the past, 1607) or earthquakes and the detrimental effect this would have on the Plant. I am concerned that the architectural plans are too old and by the time the Plant had been built will be outdated and therefore more dangerous. I am concerned that this may bring terrorist activity into the local area and have a negative impact in general."

Casey Jon
"I do not agree with the building of the new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point, West Somerset. I am concerned that the planning does not have adequate safety provisions in place for both the local people and those further afield. I am concerned that the planning does not have adequate provisions for tidal waves (which have occurred in the past, 1607) or earthquakes and the detrimental effect this would have on the Plant. I am concerned that the architectural plans are too old and by the time the Plant had been built will be outdated and therefore more dangerous. I am concerned that this may bring terrorist activity into the local area and have a negative impact in general."

R H Buckley
"I have not been able to read the technical submission, but in priciple I support the construction of nuclear power stations in this country and the concommittant rebirth of our national engineering skills in this industry. It makes sense to me to construct the new station alongside an existing station which has been generally accepted by the local population over many years. I therefore support the planning application."

Dr Gerry Wolff
"Renewables can, in general, be built much faster than nuclear power stations, they are cheaper than nuclear power, they provide greater security in energy supplies than nuclear power, they are substantially more effective in cutting emissions of CO2, there are more than enough to meet our needs now and for the foreseeable future, they provide diversity in energy supplies, and they have none of the headaches of nuclear power. Detailed evidence in support of these points may be found via http://www.energyfair.org.uk/misallocation . In terms of the fight against climate change, nuclear power diverts attention, effort, and large amounts of money away from renewables and the conservation of energy, where those resources would be better spent."

Dr Wulf Franzen
"I live near the palnned powerstation and have health concerns both for myself and for my patients espeically given the known history of low level radailion leaks at bridgwater station and into the Bristol channel I also believe thet the present infrastructure (health , trafic accommodation) is inufficient for such a large project."

Otterhampton Parish Council
"Otterhampton Parish Council is the elected representative body for the communities at Combwich, Steart and Otterhampton. As such we are a statutory consultee and have taken a leading role in consultations with EDF regarding their extensive proposals at Combwich Wharf and the Associated Development for laydown facilities at the nearby greenfield location. The Council look forward to where possible, assisting the IPC and their Commissioners in a thorough examination of EDF’s proposals at Combwich. EDF’s current proposals at Combwich are extensive and varied. There are almost 2,000 pages in the application dealing directly with Combwich and many more with associated generic issues. Due to the complexity and huge range of the proposals, the Council will be requesting specific hearings take place, of sufficient duration, to fully examine the major developments at Combwich. The Councils initial comments are meant as an indicator to assist the IPC as to which areas of concern we will be highlighting. It is understood there will be further opportunities to fully explain and expand our comments after January 23rd 2012. The Council have strong objections to many of the proposals and are also reflecting the widely expressed views of our community. At Combwich areas of concern and comment will include – • Site selection for laydown facility, focusing on PPS 25 compliance, Satisfaction of Sequential Test requirements, Selection of search areas for the various aspects at Combwich, National Policy Statement (EN1) issues on flood risk and evidence required to show compliance, Third party involvement (as against the seemingly ‘self-certification’ evidence put forward in the Overarching Flood Risk Assessment Report (OFRAR)) including the Local Planning Authority and the Environment Agency. There is a wealth of evidence in previous EDF documents, when site selection was made, that directly conflict with the most recent reports. Any ‘reasonably available’ alternative sites (such as Hinkley Point etc.). • The consequences of the poor site selection for the laydown facility at Combwich, due to the high flood risk area selected. - 10.1 hectare area raised to 7m AOD level and pile driven, with flood banks, requiring extensive road freight before the Cannington by-pass is built. At Stage 1 the total amount of material transported to build the Wharf and laydown facility was estimated at 124,000 tonnes, in February 2011 it increased to 317,000 tonnes, DCO Application total is now 933,000 tonnes. It is estimated this will involve 60,000 vehicle movements to build and 45,000 movements to remove. • Use, construction and demolition of the lay-down facility. Note: it will take four years to return the lay-down area to green fields. • Number of AIL’s through Combwich. (Now believed to be at least 330 – not the constantly quoted 180) and the consequences for other uses of the Wharf and laydown facility. The timescale of construction of HPC and the role the AIL’s will play. • The use of the sea jetty at HPC for ‘other goods’ deliveries and storage of AIL’s at the main HPC Site, including the potential use of Hinkley Point A (HPA) land and the old HPA turbine hall. • Proposed ‘Road freight use’ at Combwich including permissions required, restrictions, level of use and operational hours. • Road issues, including the Combwich and Otterhampton junctions, use and restrictions on the C182 and a Bridgwater By-Pass. • Construction and use of the New Goods Wharf including other associated developments. • New Berthing bed at the Wharf and it’s design and permanence. • The number, type and timing of deliveries to the Wharf. Previous use at Wharf. • Issues affecting the village flood risk due to lowering the existing Wharf etc. • The effects on ‘Residential amenity’, tranquillity issues, leisure use, noise, vibration, lighting and Access issues concerning Combwich Pill and the wider village community. • EDF’s ‘red line’ site boundaries at Combwich and their seeking of a lease from the Crown Estates for much of Combwich Pill with the consequent access, control and restriction of leisure use issues that arise. • Restrictions on hours of use, mitigations, operations allowed, construction and operational issues, particularly now that EDF have finally admitted in the DCO Application that there will be unmitigated, significant, major adverse effects due to their proposed activities at Combwich, including night time use. • Compensation both for individuals particularly adversely affected and the Combwich village community • Consent by the IPC, regarding a defence against nuisance for operations at Combwich. • Cumulative and Environmental concerns including visual amenity and wildlife designation. • Traffic and transport concerns including the developments role in the Freight Management Strategy. • Public safety concerns at Combwich Wharf and associated developments with regard to design and operation. • EDF’s ‘Statement of Reasons’ and the Justification, rationale and viability for the Combwich proposals. The Parish Council will be seeking, in addition to the National Policy Statements, that the IPC should also be aware of and consider other local policies including the now adopted Sedgemoor District Councils Core Strategy, the relevant Supplementary Planning Document and local Parish / Community plans, when deciding their recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Application. Whilst accepting that the AIL’s will be imported through Combwich Wharf, the Council will be looking to the IPC to recommend ‘Fair’ hours of use and restrictions to take account of the impact on our small rural village which is primarily residential. EDF are seeking to change Combwich Wharf into a large industrial facility. The wharf is closely surrounded on three sides by dwellings with a SPA (Special Protection Area) adjacent on the fourth. Despite the Wharf being constructed in the 1950’s, there have been less than 50 deliveries in total since it was built."

Bodhi Jon
"Points of why I don’t want Hinkley Point Power Station I do not agree agree with the buiding of the new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point, West Somerset. I am concerned that the planning does not have adequate safety provisions in place for both the local people and those further afield. I am concerned that the planning does not have adequate provisions for tidal waves (which have occurred in the past, 1607) or earthquakes and the detrimental effect this would have on the Plant. I am concerned that the architectural plans are too old and by the time the Plant had been built will be outdated and therefore more dangerous. I am concerned that this may bring terrorist activity into the local area and have a negative impact in general."

S Parker
"Hinkey Point C. The Work at Combwich. Issues re: Freight Laydown Area Proposals re: Wharf at Combwich Affect on Village Compensation for Village and Hoesholders. Impact of Traffic"

Jayne Howe
"I believe that without a northern bypass traffic travelling to and from Hinckley Point C is going to make it dangerous both on the roads around Bridgwater and Cannington. The road from Bridgwater to Cannington A39 is a dangerous road and when there is an accident (of which there have been many) there is no alternative for traffic making it diffficult for any emergency vehicles to get to emergencies and impossible for any one to travel to and from town for several hours. The roads around Cannington are too small for large vehicles which is going to make it dangerous for all residents especially the elderly and children. The High Street is already full of parked cars making it difficult to drive along, with lorries travelling through the village this is going to cause chaos. Also the paths are narrow in places through the village making it dangerous for pedestrians with large vehicles so close to them."

Robert Howe
"I believe that without a northern bypass traffic travelling to and from Hinckley Point C is going to make it dangerous both on the roads around Bridgwater and Cannington. The road from Bridgwater to Cannington A39 is a dangerous road and when there is an accident (of which there have been many) there is no alternative for traffic making it diffficult for any emergency vehicles to get to emergencies and impossible for any one to travel to and from town for several hours. The roads around Cannington are too small for large vehicles which is going to make it dangerous for all residents especially the elderly and children. The High Street is already full of parked cars making it difficult to drive along, with lorries travelling through the village this is going to cause chaos. Also the paths are narrow in places through the village making it dangerous for pedestrians with large vehicles so close to them."

Jade Howe
"I believe that without a northern bypass traffic travelling to and from Hinckley Point C is going to make it dangerous both on the roads around Bridgwater and Cannington. The road from Bridgwater to Cannington A39 is a dangerous road and when there is an accident (of which there have been many) there is no alternative for traffic making it diffficult for any emergency vehicles to get to emergencies and impossible for any one to travel to and from town for several hours. The roads around Cannington are too small for large vehicles which is going to make it dangerous for all residents especially the elderly and children. The High Street is already full of parked cars making it difficult to drive along, with lorries travelling through the village this is going to cause chaos. Also the paths are narrow in places through the village making it dangerous for pedestrians with large vehicles so close to them."

Josh Simms
"I believe that without a northern bypass traffic travelling to and from Hinckley Point C is going to make it dangerous both on the roads around Bridgwater and Cannington. The road from Bridgwater to Cannington A39 is a dangerous road and when there is an accident (of which there have been many) there is no alternative for traffic making it diffficult for any emergency vehicles to get to emergencies and impossible for any one to travel to and from town for several hours. The roads around Cannington are too small for large vehicles which is going to make it dangerous for all residents especially the elderly and children. The High Street is already full of parked cars making it difficult to drive along, with lorries travelling through the village this is going to cause chaos. Also the paths are narrow in places through the village making it dangerous for pedestrians with large vehicles so close to them."

Loretta Whetlor
"I am interested in this application living not too far away. I believe that the new reactor will be of immense importance to the area. My belief in this is based upon the new jobs and industry it will bring along with it. I would like to know a lot more about the effect it will have on the environment and the local people. As there is to be a park and ride not far from where I live I would like to know more about the effect on the town this will have. Is there any evidence to support possible house price increases and increase in rental of accommodation prices. Will tourism be greatly affected ? There are no figures to support this one way or another. I also believe that we need a by pass at Bridgwater to enable free flow of traffic through to West Somerset including my area and Minehead and beyond."

Brainwave
"Brainwave is a small children’s charity that operates on Marsh Lane at Huntworth Gate, Bridgwater. We work with families to provide home based individual therapies and exercises to help children with disabilities reach their full potential. That potential might be anything from helping a child to walk or feed themselves to counting. The proposed development at Junction 24 of the M5 will inevitably lead to an increasing level of traffic which is a concern for us. The accommodation backs onto the road and, despite the fact we have double glazing, we get complaints about the noise of the traffic from families already. The traffic does not die down until the early hours of the morning and commences again before 6am. Lorries are of a particular concern because of the noise and vibrations they create. It is not unusual for the floors to shake when a heavy duty lorry passes by. In addition our hydrotherapy pool and many of our consultation and therapy rooms also back onto the main road and have been affected by increasing noise. Our concern is that we are dealing with vulnerable families who need a quiet, safe and secure environment. As mentioned, already we suffer from severe traffic noise, which often disturbs the sleep of children, not just at night but also during the day as many of the children require a day time sleep. Noise adversely affects a lot of our children and those with Autism and sensory issues in particular. We believe that the proposed plans will lead to a major increase in traffic and pollution in the area. Furthermore, we believe that the plans will prevent any decrease in the already multiple traffic jams that occur outside our Centre, which already impacts on the families coming to see us. We are greatly concerned about the effect of the increased traffic and in particular the noise. If the plans are to go ahead, we would like to ask what help we might get to undertake noise reduction measures so that we can continue to provide a service to our families in an atmosphere that allows us to get the best out of the children."

Glenys Vickery
"1. Access to Hinkley Point preferably via a new road from Dunball (Junction 23 on M5) to a point north of Cannington, thereby avoiding holiday and local traffic on A39. 2. If 1 above is nor possible (EDF to declare the reasons), then the EDF preferred Cannington by-pass route to the west of the village to be built before construction at Hinkley Point commences. 3. EDF to sponsor an Air Ambulance via the Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance service to aid inevitable emergencies caused by the extra traffic on the A39 and poor local infrastructure. 4. EDF to sponsor a permanent police presence in Cannington to deal with traffic problems for reasons similar to 3 above. 5. To avoid post construction industrialisation of Cannington the proposed Park and Ride site to the west of the village should be landscaped or returned to its original use following completion of the project."

Garry Mason
"concerned over traffic build up in Bridgwater Town however good for employment opportunities."

Watchet Town Council
"Watchet Town Council are concerned about the impact on the economic sustainability of the town which depends heavily upon a tourist trade which is largely seasonal. The scale of the development and the preliminary works is such that traffic congestion is inevitable around and in Bridgwater caused by the development. The road network in West Somerset is already an impediment to residents and visitors alike. Without extensive mitigation the impact of the project will be hugely detrimental to our tourist trade. Therefore we believe a Bridgwater bypass is essential as part of this application."

Venetia Larcombe
"I don't think the question of contaminated waste products has ever been sufficiently thought through. I don't believe that the type of reactor has been proven. I have always been concerned about power stations being built at, or close to sea level for the following reasons; The potential risk of a rise in sea leval due to climate change and the risk of seismic activity in the Irish sea area causing tsumami that may overwhelm the cooling systems set in place."

Suprema Concepts Limited
"As a local business owner I and my collegues feel strongly that the planned development will be good for the local economy, providing employment and supply opportunities for local people and businesses. We have so far been impressed with EDF's efforts to work with local businesses and organisations to ensure that local companies of all sizes are enabled and encouraged to be involved in such a large project and are hoping that this will provide a much needed boost for the local economy."

Robert Crowther
"As residents of Stogursey, in principle we support EDF over their plans for the development of the new Hinckley C plant. Nevertheless, living in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development causes us particular concern at the potential for extensive environmental damage to communities tha fall within the immediate catchment. The high levels of employment necessary during the construction phase will impose an intolerable and inevitable pressure on every element of our local infrastructure, but which the proposal does not address so far. The sheer scale of the construction workforce and how / where these people are to be accommodated requires far greater elaboration to reassures us that the potential for any form of confrontation in our communities is avoided. In addition, the strain will be compounded by the totally inadequate provision suggested so far in the proposed plan to alleviate the significant consequences of traffic blight throughout the region. We urge that further rigorous consideration is necessary for effective traffic management within the whole area and particularly concerning access to M5 and the consequences to Bridgwater. Seasonal holiday traffic already causes this to be a serious issue for the area for which this development can only proliferate further."

Critical Software Technologies Ltd
"As an organisation we are keen for the developments to go ahead as we can understand that there will be direct benefits to local businesses and industries. Particularly at a time when defence related industries will start to see a downturn. The project will be an important part of the local economy."

Superheat FGH Ltd.
"We at Superheat back the plan as key to securing Britain’s energy requirements. We see EDF’s investment as key and requires the green light for all parties. It shows our country's intent to invest in sensible energy sources whilst handling this delicate area with the thought it requires."

Jean Trebble
"I believe that without a northern bypass the extra traffic that will be travelling to and from Hinckley Point C will make it dangerous both on the roads around Bridgwater and Cannington. The A39 between Cannington and Bridgwater is already a dangerous and busy road and when there is an accident (of which there have been many) there is no suitable alternative route for traffic making it diffficult for any emergency vehicles to respond to emergencies and virtualy impossible for any one to travel to and from town for several hours. The roads around Cannington are too small for large vehicles which is going to make it dangerous for all Cannington residents especially the elderly and children. The High Street is already full of parked cars making it difficult to drive along, with lorries travelling through the village this is going to cause chaos. Also the pavements are extremely narrow in places through the village making it dangerous and frightening for pedestrians when large vehicles pass by so close to them. If EDF want to make a positive rather than negative difference to all who reside and work in Bridgwater and Cannington they should do what is right and build the Northern bypass"

V Parker
"Hinkley C Appllication Issues re: Freight Laydown Area in Combwich Use of Combwich Wharf Impact on village of Combwich Compensation for village of Combwich Impact of traffic on Combwich"

Bradwell for Renewable Energy
"It may be asked why a group living geographically so far away from the proposed nuclear power station at Hinkley should have an interest and a say. The truth is that the concerns people around Hinkley have are shared by those of us living near the proposed new nuclear site at Bradwell on Sea. · We are dubious about siting such plants in isolated areas with poor transport infrastructure, low-lying, with danger of flooding, and with a fragile ecology and special areas of scientific interest. · The people of the area will have to cope with an extraordinary change in road usage, on country roads. There is an estimate of 700 heavy goods vehicles going through Bridgwater, to the only road that leads to the site that will clog up Burnham on Sea. We understand that there will be no plans for a bypass. There are concerns that workers will not be able to get through to the site. · We would ask whether emergency- planning procedures will be revised to take account of these huge changes and that the public are involved in these changes. · This peaceful country area will be transformed. Will the Commission please consider the effect, social and financial, on farming and on tourism and the quality of life of those who live nearby. · We share concerns about the retention of high-level waste on site for up to 160 years. This is particularly acute because of the low-lying nature of the land, and of the unpredictability of climate change. Mitigations can only be just that. · EDF has not an unblemished record, and there is little confidence that design and operational problems will be sorted out in time. · There is disagreement over the effects of radioactive discharges on the population downwind. The views are so polarised that, if there is not a proper discussion over this, people will live in fear and uncertainty for as long as these plants operate. · Our conclusion is that the building of new nuclear power stations on sites that were designated in earlier, less sophisticated times, does not accord with the spirit of contemporary planning regulations, which are supposed to work with the environment and its people. · We recommend that the Commission publish a study on how these planning requirements square up to the concept of Overriding Public Interest so that the people around Hinkley can understand why their way of life is to be so disrupted and changed."

Simon Scarborough
"The biggest issue with this application is the proposed access for lorries etc and the effect on the local community. Put simply the contractor should build a proper road bypass of both cannington and bridgwater by taking acces from the M5 junction at dunball across the river Parrett and avoid all the villages. The build itself is of very real questionable value to the local community (it will not create many jobs- edf will bring in and house workers from outside the country) and the existing roads are not suitable for this volume or type of traffic. Put bluntly EDF are trying to do this on the cheap and that is the long and short of the matter."

Lord Hylton
"I enter below the text of my letter to Chris Huhne MP regarding Hinkley Point , proposed C Generator: The Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP Secretary of State Dept of Energy and Climate change 12th January 2012 Hinkley Point – Proposed C Generator In principle I am opposed to this new nuclear plant. During its working life it may be reasonably safe, but I do not believe that the future costs of making it and its by-products safe for posterity will ever be recovered from the price of the electricity it produces. They are likely to be a future burden on the tax-payers. In this connection, I would be glad to hear what are the known or estimated costs of decommissioning and making safe Hinkley Point A and B? Who will bear these costs? I would like to see our energy needs met in the following ways: 1: By much greater energy efficiency, cutting waste by insulation, economies on wasteful heating and lighting etc; 2: Short-term use of natural gas, including imported LNG; 3: Development of shale-gas where this can safely be done – also methane and refuse burning; 4: Investment in clean coal-fuelled power, using English coal, wherever possible, plus Combined Heat and Power. Also iin bio-mass and low-grade wood generation. 5: Development of solar and tidal power. Surely the Severn tides could be harnessed even without a barrage across the whole river? 6: Wind-power in appropriate coastal, island and off-shore sites, where winds blow steadily. I hope this is constructive, and look forward to your reply. Yours sincerely Hylton cc David Heath MP Chairman, Somerset County Council"

Suzanna Nurse
"Excessive traffic through Cannington and past my house prior to the completion of the Cannington West Bypass. Excessive traffic through Bridgwater, a Bridgwater bypass should be progressed without delaying the main project."

Applied Technology Consultants Ltd
"Our company agree with and fully support the EDF Energy application on the basis that it will substantially boost the local economy in both the short and long term and make a much needed contribution to the country's infrastructure. We regard the application as well thought through taking into account technical, social and environmental issues in a very constructive manner."

Wyndham Ward Councillors, Bridgwater
"Our key issues are: There is an acceptable level of impact on Bridgwater due to all road transport traffic being routed through the town and we feel very strongly that a Bridgwater By-pass should be part of the submission. The current plans with all road traffic routed through Bridgwater will have an adverse impact on the commercial activity within out town and lead to acceptable levels of traffic congestion. The current plans for many of the road infrastructure juction improvements are poorly planned e.g. A39 roundabout at Quantock Road/Homberg Way. The lack of sustainable housing. This will cause an upward pressure on the private sector rents during construction and not leave a legacy of housing for the community. Tourism: negative impact on tourism and related leisure businesses e.g. Brean Leisure Park and holiday caravan sites."

Peter Morris
"I am concerned that no overall strategic overview of the development and its environs is being under taken .For example if a power station is developed the impact on Bridgewater Bay - the Quantocks - Mendips etc will be so severe that no further developments like windfarms or barages should be permitted and that should be made explicit.In essence the same argument applies to power lines and pylons which should not be separated from this application. I live within sight of the existing power stations and I am also concerned that with the time required to decomission the former stations a huge expanse of major constructions -active and redundant will blight this area on a massive scale which cannot be mitigated when viewed from the AONBs and elsewhere with the consequent detriment to tourism and local residents"

P R Lane
"A bypass North of Bridgwater from the Dunball motorway spur is essential because:- 1. I am most concerned that through-traffic will increase considerably causing delays, due to increased traffic congestion, and all emergency services will be blocked. 2. Any park-and-ride facility or heavy vehicle and equipment storage must not be sited in Cannington Parish because it is too far from Hinkley Point and would ruin the village turning it into an industrial site. 3. Tourism will be severely damaged by increased traffic along the A 39."

C.W.Feltham Ltd
"Hinkley point has proven over many years that it can provide a safe, reliable source of energy. Hinkley C should have been started years ago back in the 1990's. We are too dependant on other countries for power and urgently need the power station to be up and running efficiently. As an organisation we believe it brings wealth and opportunities to the area. My only down side is the slight increased threat of a terrorist attack. This seems very far fetched but the twin towers in America opened our eyes to a new bread or terrorism. Although we must take terrorism seriously it should not stop the planning permission being granted for Hinkley C."

Philip Jowett
"The plans for the current Hinckley Point project gives inadequate thought for the current inhabitants and businesses of Sedgemore with regard to transport. We are told that the building phase will be at least 10 years and there will be thousands of vehicles travelling to Hinckley including HGV's. The current road structure is struggling to cope at the moment without the additional influx of the Hinckley Point traffic once the project begins. Some minor modifications have been proposed which are pathetic in the grand scheme of the project. the proposed by pass at Cannington will have no effect on the general Sedgemore traffic problem. The potential transport problems could well restrict and stifle the business within and surrounding Bridgwater. Householders will struggle to move around at the peak traffic times of morning and afternoon and school run time. If the project is to progress I feel that a much more substantial plan has to be developed to cater for the transport. ie use of a ferry service to transport vehicles, equipment and staff from Dunball, Bristol, South Wales or even France, or possibly the road over the River Parrot from Dunball to Hinckley. An additional point is about additional costs for the sea defences around the Hinckley point site. the sea levels are rising and will continue to rise. I understand the Environmental Agency has this responsibility. Who pays?"

N M Berridge
"1. No major building to start before a bypass is built. 2. There is already a large amount of lorries using cannington high street increasing noise pollution and causing safety issues. 3. Canningtons roads are too narrow to take the increase in trafic and it will cause a significant change in village life. 4. The extra traffic could impact on our holiday trade. 5. The cannington bypass was built as it was considered the minehead traffic impacted on the village of cannington so isnt it obvious that edf traffic needs a bypass so that it does not come through the village. 6. What will happen if there is an accident in the high street blocking the road? 7. How dare edf think that the villagers of cannington should put up with the huge missery that a lorry every 40 seconds would cause. 8. What would happen if the village held a street party or market day in the high street as has happened before and we close the road, or does this mean no more street partys for us? 9. The safety aspects alone mean that a bypass is the most obvious way of allowing the building works and keeping the village the way it should be. Quiet and safe."

Galliford Try Infrastructure (South Wales & South West England)
"I wish to support the proposal because it provides 1) a huge influx of meaningful, well paid jobs at the construction, operation & maintenance & de-commissioning stages. 2) a huge injection into the local economy 3) substantial community benefits 4) cost effective production of renewable power"

Peter Webber
"I would like to record my complete support for the progression of this proposal to a successful outcome. The country urgently needs more nuclear generating capacity and the building of Hinkley 'C' would also provide additional employment and a much needed regeneration of this local area. In my view nuclear technology is the correct option for the country to take. Whereas I can understand members of the public becoming very concerned about what happened in Japan, UK nuclear power stations have an exemplary record and it is foolhardy to think that an accident of the kind that took place at Fukishima could occur in the UK. Here's hoping that EDF can press ahead!"

Shapwick Parish Council
"As the Parish of Shapwick is situated within the local community its members are keen to ensure that adequate considerations are made as such communities will be affected both during the build and operational phases of the project."

Simon Woolf
"There should be either a dedicated road from M5 Junction 23 to Hinkley Point or a northern bypass from the M5 around Bridgwater and beyond to the west of Cannington."

Matalan Retail Limited
"Matalan Retail Limited hold premises at Bristol Road, Bridgwater by way of a lease expiring 3 December 2020. The Order proposes the taking of land demised to Matalan (Plot Number: BR WR_10) as a result of highway 'improvements' at A38 Bristol Road/ Wylds Road. It is this aspect of the Order to which we object due to the following reasons. Details of the lease and demise were provided to the proposer's agents on the understanding that we would be provided 'with more detail about the Hinkley Point project and how [Savills] are looking to acquire land'. We have had no further contact from the agent. Matalan operate a retail business from the premises, requiring 24 hour access for staff, deliveries, customers and business visitors by foot and/ or vehicle. We are concerned that during construction there will be a serious adverse affect on access to the premises resulting in a detrimental impact on the profitability of the business. The proposer has not detailed how the development will be carried out, the types of plant and machinery that will be used and how any disruption and nuisance (dust, noise, vibration) will be minimised. We are concerned that customers may decide not to visit the area which will result in reduced profitability. It is quite possible that following the works, it will prove difficult to attract those customers back to shop with us. Matalan are concerned that the proposal will promote a permanent increase in the flow, speed and frequency of traffic entering Wylds Road from Bristol Road (and vice versa) making it difficult for vehicles to leave Allerton Road onto Wylds Road, especially when turning right. This will cause the backing up of traffic on the Matalan car park resulting in a reduced turnover of customers and in turn less sales at the store. The proposal seems to require the reduction of the landscaped area at the front of the site which, interestingly, was on of the conditions under the original planning consent. It is not clear from the proposal how pedestrians on the north side of Bristol Road will be kept safely separated from the traffic in the Matalan car park once the land is taken. The proposer has not demonstrated that the land take is essential for the proposed scheme to proceed."

Felicity Rich
"It is my opinion that no work should be carried out on this project until there is some alternative route made for the heavy goods vehicles and construction traffice to travel through on. I am a regular visiter to the area and find it very distressing to think that the local area will be affected and damaged by all this extra heavy traffic ploughing through the streets. I believe it will be very dangerous to those in the surrounding villages and will detract hugely from the beautiful countryside and thus devistate the tourist industry round the area. If there were a bypass or some other alternative route that was not so invassive to the local people then the works could still be carried out and the damages would be severely lessoned."

John H Billingham
"1) I agree that Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station should be constructed at the site proposed and the need for the UK to adopt nuclear power as a dependable energy source for the national grid. 2) I also acknowledge that this proposed major construction project will provide opportunities of employment for the many local skills available in the area during the period of construction and ultimately the operation of the new plant. Hopefully it will also provide opportunities for the local supply chain covering general trades, materials and goods etc. 3) As a resident of Cannington I disagree with the intention to allow HGV's (15 vehicles an hour, each way) to drive through the village for the next 2 years, whilst the proposed new Cannington by-pass is constructed. This will result in considerable hardship to all of the residents making it more difficult to for us to undertake our normal day to day business. It is not only detrimental to the village and its residents but with traffic in the area already suffering daily congestion the proposed 'timed control' of the HGV vehicles will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain."

Mervyn S Todd
"I am very concerned at the effect, on the local enviorment, congestion of local and rural roads which will extend to at least a 15mile radius as a result of the building of the Nuclear Power Station will cause. Studies in London on reducing traffic congestion resulted in a significant improvement in the health of the population as the air pollution reduced. This was especially noticed in young children and asma sufferers. Our current congestion is quite serious at peak time. A journey from Junction 27 (M5) to the centre of Bridgwater takes on average 3.5minutes; this increases on a Saturday to up to 20 minutes. The pollution of Co2 emmisions is huge, it is also very costly to the individual motorist. An idling or slow moving engine produces the most dangerous pollutents. Hinkley is a Nuclear Site and therefore future Generaters will be built on this site. I am greatly disturbed that a completely seperate road to take all site traffic is not being treated as a priority as it would benefit financially EDF immediatly as it would shorten every vehicles journey as EDF would have a certain amount of control on their own congestion. EDF's apparent stubboness to consider this option, especially as it has been recommended in previous official studies should be of great concern as the current options being put forward do not improve the current situation at all and only aggavate a difficult situation. The argument that it should have been dealt with before is not an excuse to make it worse. It is also an admission by EDF that they are aware of the difficulties. The hidden cost of this icreased pollution and congestion will effect everybody living in this area. Local deliveries to surrounding villages will become too costly in time and fuel to make the deliveries viable. Therfore the ederly and those that are unable to travel will be the helpless victims of this short term cost saving. Many of the villages have vibrant comuntities that attract Tourists but the Tourist will not come to an area that has a polution problem. They come to the West Country because they appreciate our fresh clean air. I would appreciate it, if you consider my comments as I do not see the current plans do anything to lessen our Green House Emissions. I have lived here for over 50 years and therefore have been able to present facts rather than emotions. We have a shop in Nether Stowey and another in Bridgwater, so we have been able to listen to the views of both the rural and town communities."

Eugene Martin
"I would like to register my concern about the accomodation block that is proposed to be built on the old Cellophane site and specifically the adjoining sports fields. I understand there is currently no guarantee that new replacement sports fields will be available before the exsiting sports fields site is made unavailable - this means many football and cricket teams will have nowhere to play for a considerable time. As a member of Bridgwater Sports Football Club for many years, these existing playing fields and changing amenities have been a crucial part of my life and I am deeply worried that the authorities of the EDF development are not viewing any replacement sports pitches important enough. Can we please ensure replacement sports fields and amenities are developed and available before the existing ones are no longer able to be used. Thank you."

Roy Deakin
"I support the application for a nuclear station at Hinkley Point but I do not support EDF's proposals for the road infrastructure in Cannington and Bridgwater.Two main points. 1.The Consultation process did not seem to be two way. By that I mean EDF were not interested in the views of an outstanding majority of Cannington villagers about the need for a northern bypass from the M5 to north of Cannington or indeed would not answer any questions on why they did not want this particular solution to the anticipated traffic problems in Cannington and Bridgwater. I personally did not get an answer to why they had taken or not taken the 'Barnes Public Enquiry Report' into consideration about the construction of a bypass before work starts on the power station. 2. Their proposals for a 'western by pass' did not include any details regarding lessening the environmental (increasing light noise pollution) to my property which is located within 30 yards of this road. There was also no consideration of the affects during construction of this road that would take up to 3years. They were not open to any discussion on alternative western routes to lessen the effect on my property and Brymore School drive."

Lesley Jennings
"It is patently obvious that no power station should be built before a dedicated road network from the motorway has been built. Whilst a power station is needed in England we must make sensible decisions and look at all options before embarking on such a large project. Somerset is a beautiful area of England supporting a huge tourist industry. In summer the area is heavily congested with cars, caravans and buses and one wonders what the situation will be in 10 years following the building of the power station with no changes to the road system. The quality of life in the area will be affected The A 39 is very congested and I imagine even now if disaster strikes how the emergency services will cope. I believe the local county councils should receive answer to their very real concerns before any work starts at all. The solution is either a dedicated road from M5 to Hinkley Point or a northern bypass from the M5 around Bridgwater and to the west."

Rev. Robin Hutt
"I am happy for there to be a new power station at Hinkley Point. However, I am concerned about the major and lengthy disruption, especially on the road system, while the power station is being built. Bridgwater is congested enough during peak periods and especially at holiday times as it is. My preferred solution would be a Northern bypass for Bridgwater, which also be a very good long-term asset for the town."

South West Inland Marine.co.uk
"My Interests are as follows: 1. The right to access, navigation and use of the River Parrett, Combwich Pill, The Slipway at Combwich Pill, and the routes to Bridgwater Docks, and beyond to Burrowbridge and the River Tone, Highbridge and other navigable routes in Somerset for the conveyance of cargoes, boat crews and passengers,as a working, trading, cargo carrying boat operator and manufacturer of traditional somerset river boats on the tidal waters of the estuary, at all tidal levels and in all weathers. 2.The right to access and use of the above interest (1) for Flood Response training purposes for boats and crews currently acting as a voluntary, charitably registered, uk resilience and International Disaster response team based in Somerset. 3. The right to access and use of the River Parrett, Combwich Pill and the boatyard at Combwich as a private member of the Boat Club. I strongly disagree with with the application by EDF to obtain exclusive rights of usage at all high tides on the River Parrett both during the period of proposed wharf alteration and construction at Combwich and for any period therafter, my reasons for my objection are simple and I believe straightforward. Exclusive rights granted to EDF would make it virtually impossible for any other legitimate working vessels to work the River as part of their operations on either commercial or potentially humanitarian grounds."

Philip Bedlington Roberts on behalf of Olive Margaret Roberts
"Concern about Safety in the area having regard to lack of safety in Japan and elsewhere The use of the roads through Spaxton,Charlynch and the A.39 The effect on house prices in the earea"

David Charles Griffiths CEng, CQP, MIMechE, MCQI
"I am concerned as to whether the nuclear safety of Hinckley Point C against the possibility of a tsunami caused by an earthquake or asteroid in the Atlantic Ocean has been adequatly justified (ie not more probable than once in 10^6 years)."

MRS PATRICIA BATER
"I object to EDF plans which will increase what is a very overcrowded road already, At present on one hours surveyI counted a heavy every five minutes on Rodway hill. THIS VILLAGE WILL BE GRIDLOCKED."

M Jenkins
"A northern route is imperative to the construction of Hinkley Point C. A link road should be constructed between Bridgwater north and Hinkley point. 1-The savings of fuel and transportation times alone would pay for a bridge and road direct to Hinkley point 2-The wharf at Dunball could handle the friet thats needed in the construction 3-The traffic diversion at cannington will be used by heavy transport, the light traffic will still go through the village. If the construction of A & B stations was anything to go by it will be at the least terrible more likely hellish for the residents of cannington!"

Margaret Schütt
"I agree with the facts stated in the arguments against the proposed traffical arrangements. Alternative traffical arrangements should be made to protect europe from a nuclear disaster."

Scott Collard
"I believe that any green areas that are taken away eg. the football pitches and bowling green should be replaced before they are taken away. I have played on the pitches all my life, both football and cricket and think it's extremely important that they remain for future generations. In this day and age when a lot of people moan about what the 'youth of today' get up to and yet here is an organisation thinking of taking away something in which a lot of youths use. Why???"

Peter Greig
"1. Date of opening of Cannington Bypass included in the Traffic Assessment . 7.4.26 Effects on Cannington identifies a temporary early years impact in Cannington as one of the most significant impacts of the HPC project 2. Cost of traffic congestion; burden falling on general public; EDFE share of burden 3. Bridgwater Bypass, Highway Authority involvement, long term benefits. Positive support for tourist industry in Somerset and Devon. 4. EDFE and the essential good public relations required for a successful and timely construction programme for Hinkley C Power Station. 5. Use of Stogursey Lane as alternate or additional emergency exit from Hinkley Point to the A39 at Nether Stowey village."

Linda Rogers
"The IPC does not recognise the implications from Fukushima, that a serious accident could contaminate the water and land at a distance of at least 50 kilometres, and which has, in Japan, meant that exports have been stopped to 40 countries. Wales would clearly be affected by any accident. There has not been enough recognition either of the effects of emissions on the environment, especially on the marine environment. Neither has the problem of waste been answered. It is not safe to keep high burn-up fuel on site for approximately 100 years. And then, what is to happen to it? Present statements from the DECC suggest it can be buried with legacy waste. This has not been researched."

Sampford Brett Parish Council
"We remain concerned about increased traffic along the A39 which passes through Williton, which is already congested. We would also like to see further road improvements along the A39 where traffic problems are already evident and would like to see commitment to the roundabout at Washford Cross before the park and ride facility is developed."

James Lock
"Hinkley C should have been build 20 years ago. Now, the sooner the better. Access to the site, avoiding driving through Bridgwater, should be a major priority."

Mrs Emma Summers
"I have always been strongly opposed to Nuclear Energy as I believe it is unsafe and stores up problems for future generations, particularly with regard to the nuclear waste created. The dangers of nuclear energy have been demonstrated recently by the nuclear disaster in Japan. As someone who lives about 15 miles away I am very concerned about the impact any future flooding of Hinkley might have on the local population."

P J Wainwright
"(1)I am concerned about the safety of yet another nuclear installation on the Severn. The concentration is too great; it would be safer to build it in another area of the country. Or better still use the money to fiance the safer option of a Severn barrage. (2) If Hinckley C does go ahead it will have a devastating effect on the congestion in the area. It will create extra traffic in an area which is already overfull. If it does go ahead the very minimum requirement would be a second bridge across the River Parratt, to relieve the pressure on the A39 and Bridgwater town, and discourage people from forsaking the A39 for country lanes."

Peter Russell
"It is well ;proven that nuclear power stations produce an increased casualty rate from leukemias and cancers in the areas surrounding the stations.. This is known from a vast number of measurements and investigations in a number of countries, including Hinkley Point A and B, investigated by Dr. Chris Busby some years ago. Possibly the most decisive and best authenticated research was the one sponsored by the German Government and known as the KiKK report, with which you must surely be familiar. It is therefore safe to conclude that continuing to build new nuclear power stations is likely to be a serious cause of future illness for mankind in the locality of each such station. But worse, the problem of the nuclear waste generated has never been tackled and the best that anybody can come up with is just storing it - usually in open pools - and the folly of that was proven last March when the Fukushima reactors in Japan were wrecked by a tsunami. But in the light of the fact that much of the nuclear waste is of a level vastly greater than any natural radiation present in the earth's crust in the days before we introduced nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and that it has a life of thousands of years during which the stability of the earth is impossible to predict, we are playing with fire on our own account, but worse jepardising future generations whose health will be steadily eroded by the ever-increasing amount of ionizing radiation at loose in the world, leading to an unstoppable escalation in the amount of cancers and other diseases which will have to be dealt with."

Matthew Fursland
"‘Having recently seen the plans for the new power station at Hinkley point, in particular the proposed development of the accommodation blocks within Bridgwater on the old Cellophane site. I have been playing football on these fields for 15 years & hope to continue for a few years yet. I am concerned there appears to be no plans for future playing fields that will leave myself/cellophane football club & many other clubs that use the facility currently without nowhere to play. I would ask that full consideration is given to ensuring that we have at least the same level of facilities in place, these should be in place and usable before the existing areas and provision is stopped by this development. Large group of Adults & Kids use these facilities every week (approx 6 football teams & 2 cricket team during the cricket season), without these facilities hundreds of people will be affected badly.. Hopefully i am being clear, any preplanning or planning application needs to ensure that the playing field areas used within the Bridgwater sports and social club grounds should have similar if not better facilities and be available for use before the existing provision is removed or developed. I really cant explain enough how important these facilities are the local communities, the social club itself is such a great place for people to gather, currently there arent no other facilities like it - please take this into account, not doing so will upset a huge amount of local people."

Sam Stacey
"Following the publication of the plans for the new power station at Hinkley point I note the proposed development of the accommodation blocks within Bridgwater specifically the development on the old Cellophane site, I am a user of the playing fields that the complex will be built on. I am concerned that there appears to be no consideration for future playing fields that will allow us to continue our activities. I would request that full consideration be given to include providing at minimum the same area of playing fields and facilities, these should be in place and usable before the existing areas and provision is stopped by this development. Great numbers of people (adults and children) enjoy these facilities every week, any interruption of availability would have a devastating effect on the area and people that use it. To be clear, any preplanning or planning application must ensure that the green areas used within the Bridgwater sports and social club grounds should be replaced with equivalent or better facilities and be 100% operational before the existing provision is removed or developed"

Claire Platten
"I totally disagree to the application,of Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station IPC Reference: EN010001. The Environmental impacts of such a energy generating scheme are beyond our understanding and capabilites. Nuclear is Not Clean it produces waste which is highly dangerous and cant not be bought back into the worldsbiological systems on which we all depend for life."

W J Sprod
"We object to a Freight Laydown area being planned on a flood plain when EDF has other sites available including the main construction site. the 24 acres in question ( equivalent to 20 football pitches) will need to be raised by apprx. one metre and need some approx. 900,000 tons of material to buid it. This in turn will generate 60,000 heavy goods vehicles before the Cannington By-Pass is built. How can EDF justify building a facility like this in a small rural village where the added vehicle movements will be extemely costly and disruptive to the local community and where we will be using yet more agricultural land. In addition to the above we are concerned about the flood risk issues and the lowering of the existing wharf. Why is it necessary to have to use the goods wharf here in Combwich when a similar facility is to be built at Hinkley Point. Our wharf is in the centre of the village and usage by EDF will create serious noise and light pollution for all residents. We object to our loss of tranquility and the impact of noise, lighting, vibration and issues concerning the wharf and footpaths on our leisure activities. We object to the amount of traffic that will use the Hinkley Point Road (C182) and the serious impact on the junction into/out of Combwich and Otterhampton. The difficulties of getting through Cannington without a by-pass and the tremendous impact on Bridgwater a northern by-pass is unthinkable. By EDF's own figures there will be over 1,000 vehicles (a total of 2,000 vehicles movements per day) that will pass the end of the village each way to & from Hinkley Point. We urge the need to minimse the impact on all residents of Combwich by using all engineering means possible and restricting the working hours and providing some means of insulation to relevant properties. We would also like to add that when Hinkley Point A and B were built, there was nothing like this amount of disruption concerning Combwich - AIL's came into the village and went straight out to Hinkley Point - why not now with HPC ?"

Rebecca Balloch
"I am generally in favour of the new nuclear development proposed at Hinkley Point – Somerset, due to the potential investment in local skills and training, job opportunities for local people and the overall benefits to the local economy. I welcome EDF’s commitment to these areas and hope they are able to deliver on their promises. However, I have the following objections to make: 1. Transport proposals need to be realistic and take full account of the impacts that will be created as a result of the increase in traffic. If an online solution isn’t really going to ease the situation (data seems questionable?), a Northern Bridgwater Bypass should be fully assessed and considered as a realistic option to ease congestion. A Cannington Bypass MUST be built before significant numbers of HGV’s are required for site-prep and during main construction, if permission is granted. 2. CIM fund – this needs to be increased significantly from £20m. This offer doesn’t go far enough when there are so many perceived and cumulative impacts which will not be dealt with through other means of mitigation. For example, well being of residents. 3. More investment needs to be given for permanent housing to leave a lasting legacy in Taunton Deane, West Somerset, and Sedgemoor districts. As a resident of Taunton Deane who can only afford to rent I have a significant concern regarding the potential impact an influx of workers (who will be highly paid) will have on the rental market in my area. If rental prices rise significantly I am concerned that I will have to move from the area and seek work elsewhere in the Country where rent is cheaper. 4. Greater resources need to be provided to NHS / emergency services to cope with the increase of people living in the area and the potential impact they may have on local communities."

Bridgwater & District Civic Society
"We are supportive of the project in line with Bridgwater Town Mayor's submission of 8 September 2010 following EDF Phase 1 and 2 consultations, but conditional on local issues being resolved. We consider that key is the need for a northern bypass of Bridgwater. Unless this forms part of the application then all other alleviations become irrelevant. The town's heritage is at stake. Current traffic levels already impose a heavy burden on the community and to expect a marginally improved infrastructure to cope with the resulting surge in population, let alone construction traffic, is both unrealistic and the path to an environmental disaster."

Bridgwater Bay Wildfowlers Association
"Submission to the IPC enquiry into the EDF/NNB Hinkley Point ‘C’ proposals Mr. S. Hill on behalf of Bridgwater Bay Wildfowlers Association (BBWA), other wildfowlers and anglers. The sustainable harvest of wild species, including shore gathering, blatting for conger, beach casting and wildfowling has taken place on this foreshore since time immemorial. Wildfowling is the sustainable harvest of certain aquatic bird species permitted under the wildlife and countryside act. Over recent years the site has consistently gained the highest conservation designations without threat to the continuation of traditional activities, including wildfowling, which are not seen as creating any significant threat or long term impact. Vitally important migratory wild bird feeding flight paths exist from the Bridgwater Bay area to and from inland sites on the Somerset levels and moors. BBWA The association was originally formed from local groups of wildfowlers concerned over proposals to create the Bridgwater Bay NNR and has existed to this date. BBWA is affiliated to the British Association for Shooting & conservation (BASC). BBWA provide Natural England (NE) voluntary wardens look after the interests of the NNR, as do Highbridge Huntspill & Burham Wildfowlers Association(HH&BWA). I am chairman of the association and have been mandated by my association & other wildfowlers, both locally & nationally, to respond to these proposals. As BBWA are the closest association, providing the wardening for the ‘Excepted’ area and I am local to the site I have a ‘watching brief’role for the BASC & HH&BWA who may additionally make their own response. I have actively been a local Natural England voluntary warden for more than 22 years and have been wildfowling and angling on the Severn estuary in excess of 45 years. Wildfowling has continuously existed prior to & during the build & operation of the existing A & B nuclear sites. Neither I nor BBWA are against the building of a new nuclear power station. We have spent a lot of time and personal resource in trying to work with EDF on their proposals over the last two years. The ‘Excepted & Permitted’ areas Prior to any of the existing power stations arrangements for Wildfowling and fishing were formally recognised and agreed during the inquiry that set up the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve (NNR). As part of the national enquiry that led to this the first ever NNR two ‘Permitted’ areas and an ‘Excepted area’ were established, as a prerequisite enabling the granting of the bylaws, at the creation of the NNR. The bylaws subsequently removed existing common rights to wildfowl or fish over the other areas of the newly created NNR (the reserve). The permitted areas are on the NNR north & south bank area of the river Parrett estuary. The BBWA having the North and HH&BWA the south area. Permits are granted, and strictly limited, to the members of the two local wildfowling associations for their respective areas. Page 1 of 5. 2. The ‘Excepted’ area of foreshore extends continuously from the western end of the NNR (Shurton Bars) past Hinkley point to the SDC drainage pipe @ Stolford, its eastern limit. To our knowledge the ‘Excepted area’ is now Nationally unique in that as a result of legislative changes and other arrangements such as use of Crown foreshore, it is the last place in England & Wales that anyone is able to Wildfowl without agreement, permit or specific consent of others, providing they are in compliance with firearms legislation. This should give extra ‘weighting’ to any potential impact assessment. There is no permit system or other bureaucracy hurdle to overcome or worry about. Wildfowlers do not have to obtain membership of any other organisation. This gives equal access to all and the excepted area a historically national importance to Wildfowlers. Matters of concern That the proposals put forward by EDF continue to have an immediate and potentially long term severe negative implication on the activities of members of Bridgwater Bay Wildfowlers Association (BBWA) and other wildfowlers using the foreshore. 1. Inadequate Impact Assessment Despite repeated engagement with EDF from the beginning of consultation (circa 2 years) and the offer of assistance the ‘impact on wildfowling assessments’ have not been carried out. Wildfowling takes place principally at dawn & dusk Sept 1st to 20th Feb annually. Frequency is dependent on weather conditions(the worst the better) and the tidal state (limits safe access). EDF Recreational ‘assessment’ as such took place in June & July outside of the main migratory bird & wildfowling seasons. The assessments demonstrably have no involvement from a source competent to do so, therefore the conclusions on impact cannot reasonably be seen to be robust. EDF appear to have relied on un-validated verbal statements and anecdotal evidence rather than fact. The impact on waterfowl of massively increased river Parrett traffic through the NNR during key high water periods, especially at dawn & dusk, has not been assessed. During severe cold weather conditions when there is little or no open water the river Parrett NNR is a vital safe roost. During such time wildfowling is suspended, either voluntarily or by a statutory ban. Disturbance to this roost will create increased mortality and could lead to permanent change to the migratory pattern. 2. Factual errors i.e 17.5.23 Bridgwater Bay Wildfowlers Association(BBWA) and Highbridge Huntspill & Burnham Wildfowlers Association(HH&BWA) operate on discrete specific areas under of the River Parrett Part of the NNR separate Annual Permit arrangements – the ‘Permitted areas’. Membership of BBWA is restricted and not open to the general public as are the number of permits available to HH&BWA. Page 2 of 5. 3. BBWA currently has circa 70 full shooting members & HH&BWA have a similar number, so circa 140, which is twice the number inferred. Wildfowling on the Parrett is different in nature & character to that of the ‘Excepted area’. NE has admitted they have no information regarding shooting of the ‘Excepted area’ by members of either association or other wildfowlers. They do factual have information on the permitted area through annual bag returns which the associations strictly enforce. The ‘Excepted area’ is completely different and discrete to the ‘Permitted areas’ as stated in 17.5.23 and contrary to 17.6.22 &.40 will be affected/impacted by construction activity on the main site. The ‘Excepted area’ can be & is wildfowled by anyone not just members of the two associations. Given the nature of wildfowling and the foreshore it can be extremely difficult to spot wildfowlers, especially to the untrained eye The ‘Excepted area’ is part of the NNR and subject to its byelaws. The statement ‘the excepted area can be used for shooting by any member of the BASC’ is incorrect. The excepted area can be shot over by anyone legally entitled to shoot (i.e. listed species, has valid license, shotgun only etc.). It is advised that persons are members of an organisation offering guidance & suitable insurance (i.e. BASC, CA, NOBS) but there is no compulsion to do this. Frequency of use is not proven. The site is of national (not local) importance, its uniqueness giving it additional weighting. It is featured in the BASC national where to wildfowl guide. The impact assessment appears to be based on a ‘local’ not the national basis which we have identified to EDF on several occasions. The conclusion of low importance impact, for reasons stated above, has not been demonstrated as based on fact but based on supposition, inaccuracy and unproven information. The nature of wildfowling requires a relatively large area per person and the presence of other members of the public is prohibitive (i.e. Shore Fishermen, boats). To our knowledge there are no other ‘excepted areas’ in England & Wales and no ‘other areas’ that wildfowlers can use have been identified. Migratory Wildfowl quarry species, with the possible exception of indigenous mallard, avoid manmade structures especially those in use. The site bisects circa one quarter of the excepted area landward flightpath. As the site is adjacent/conjoins the existing two other sites it will result in a severe effect on the remaining accessible eastern flightpath. Currently the eastern foreshore area is the most light & noise pollution free of all of the accessible excepted area and at least one third of it would adversely affected. This detrimental effect will exist from construction right through to final decommissioning many years hence. Mitigation for this by the extension of the ‘Excepted area’ has been agreed in principle for the construction phase with NE and should be sought as a permanent measure. Page 3 of 5. 4. 3. Accessibility Access to the central ‘Excepted area’ was for many years through the external site parking by the visitor centre at the western end of the ‘A’ site with a short walk to the foreshore. A few years ago this was temporarily withdrawn due to a perceived security threat to the then still commissioned ‘A’ site and never reinstated. This has resulted in a much longer & steeper walk further to the west, precluding access, increasing the difficulty of wardening and poses a safety risk to those using the foreshore in winter. The current proposals extinguish the existing western footpaths which would result in even further journey on foot carrying equipment which will exclude all those other than the young & extremely fit. There is no provision for those less able to access the coastal path for a considerable distance. Access to the foreshore is not linear due to the high cliffs & sea defences. It is difficult to walk laterally along the foreshore due to its rocky nature. Lack of detail regarding public access provision onto the foreshore does not allow a fair assessment of impedance and obstruction. It is difficult to access the foreshore at many points currently due to the sea defences, boulders and low cliffs. The Severn estuary has the world’s second highest tidal range which can lead to unexpected extreme conditions. The risk of getting it wrong being cut off by the tide and soaked risking exposure is a real & present threat. Increasing egress difficulty has a general public safety implication that does do seem to have been assessed. There are no facts detailing the additional distances to be walked to access the foreshore and no formative risk assessment identifying mitigation measures for any difficulties that could be caused. I believe a shorter safe access route (F3-F16) could be maintained throughout the project at little cost. No factual evidence has been put forward to refute this. Discussions with the Hinkley Point Civil Nuclear Constabulary Superintendant at the HPC community forum have indicated that there are no serious security implications and that this would be acceptable, subject to an agreed protocol. A suggestion from us, initially received as a good idea, that there should be reinstatement of the permissive vehicular access and a safe area to park has not been offered (initial security concerns were later dispelled during discussion with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary representative). A further suggestion made of a safe area to park adjacent to footpath access WL 23/70 & WL 23/71 south of the site of off the C182 has not been offered. The current arrangements couple with the increased volume & size of traffic will create a safety hazard and potentially preclude use of the footpaths. The above measures would be seen as favourable legacy to offset the impact of the project on the general public recreational amenity. Page 4 of 5. 5. 4. Other matters It is extremely difficult, if not unjust, to expect the ordinary person to find sufficient resource respond to such a proposal with potentially life changing impacts given: • The nature & volume of the material to be assessed • the very short time given to register response • that there are for other separate major proposals affecting the immediate local area (Site Prep works, MMO Jetty inquiry, Port of Bristol & Environment Agency managed retreats to the east of Hinkley) • Three of the proposals were released for planning consultation at the same time & over the festive period precluding access to professional guidance. • The information is difficult to access by home computer, especially as there is no facility to copy selected tracts into a document. • Information potentially affecting us is dispersed throughout the whole body & difficult to navigate/find. • Due to previous access restriction effective voluntary wardening activity in the area is currently difficult and would be made improbable by the proposed access burden. • The wardening is a shining example of government ‘people’ policy, has taken place for over 55 years at no cost to the public purse and has proven its worth in maintaining site integrity. • Loss of this ‘deterrent’ would be detrimental to NNR integrity and it has been impossible for Natural England resource a meeting to discuss the implications in the timescale allowed. As I have previously suggested to EDF, and subject to competent assessment, I believe that measures could be identified to minimise this impact i.e. adaptive lighting, time of day/year sensitivity to major works. The errors and omissions after prolonged active input and assistance from ourselves raises concerns over the factual integrity of the proposal. If there are additional matters that are subsequently identified that could have detriment we would still wish to be able to register comment. Conclusion • That a suitable impact assessment on wildfowling & foreshore access has not been made. • Impact would be for the duration that the site is in existence. • That mitigation measures could & should be evaluated. • A compliance framework for mitigation matters should be established. • Given the length of time that consultation has taken place greater detail should be available for analysis and the consideration of mitigation. Mr. Stuart Hill At the instruction of, for and on behalf of the BBWA (as its Chairman). As an independent local wildfowler, NE voluntary Warden and shore angler. 17th November 2011. Page 5 of 5."

Mr D Edmunds
"I am very concerned about the increase in traffic density that will result if the HPC application is approved. Bridgwater road infrastructure currently struggles to cope with normal every day commuting and soon grinds to a halt for the smallest of road incidents. During the consultation process EDF have revised their proposals and decided to expand developments at M5 J23 and J24. From these two junctions all traffic will converge on Bridgwater. I fail to see how any amount of kerb realignment, road marking or traffic light changes will cater for the volume of traffic HPC development will bring. Also, there is already a noticeable increase of labour and traffic movements during outages of the existing Hinkley Point 'B' reactors. This does not appear to be factored into any of the EDF proposals. Expanding the developments at the motorway junctions reinforces the arguement that a Bridgwater bypass is required from J23 to Cannington. All traffic movements from these junctions could use the bypass, J24 traffic via the M5. No major HPC traffic movements would have to pass through Bridgwater and existing Hinkley Point traffic could also benefit from the route. EDF acknowledge the "'A' roads with high existing traffic flows". Significant disruption to local Bridgwater inhabitants would be avoided as the questionable road improvement schemes would not be necessary. From a safety aspect a Bridgwater bypass would provide a faster/alternate route for emergency response vehicles. This would be a legacy for the life of HPC, from cradle to grave. No better legacy could be left to the people of Bridgwater. My conclusion of EDF proposals is that a Bridgwater bypass should be made a condition of approval and not dismissed because EDF conclude "such a road cannot be justified given the measures proposed to mitigate transport impacts from the HPC"."

Friends of Quantock
"Friends of Quantock are the Amenity Society for the Quantock Hills and were founded in 1949 to preserve and enhance the natural landscape of the Quantock Hills representing both the local community and a much wider group of people who know and love the Quantocks. We have followed the proposals for Hinkley Point C with some concern and have attended several of the presentations made as well as studying the various documents made public. Our principal concern is naturally the intrusive impact that the proposal will have on the AONB. While the buildings are well outside the AONB their impact will have a very major effect on nearly all areas of the AONB and indeed will dominate all outward views to the north and east. While we certainly support all measures to mitigate the impact we fear that nothing will prevent the buildings having a very serious negative effect on a very important landscape that is of great value both to the locality community and the national interest. The scale of this impact appears to be acknowledged in the latest consultation documents issued last October. The impact will not only be during daylight hours as light pollution from the buildings and associated works will also have a negative effect on the Quantock environment. Other concerns centre on the traffic generated by the development, particularly during the construction phase. The narrow and winding section of the A39 east of Williton passes through the AONB and whatever measures are taken there is bound to be a considerable impact on what is already a dangerous stretch of road. We also feel that there will inevitably be increased use of the narrow lanes around the AONB and on the two routes across the hills. This will increase the accident rate, damage verges and passing places, and increase litter and vandalism as well as producing higher levels of noise and pollution. As a voluntary society we do not have the resources to comment in detail on the voluminous documentation of the proposal but as a member of the Joint Advisory Committee for the Quantocks we work closely with the AONB Service and are fully supportive of the views and representations made on their behalf."

Alistair Johnstone
"I do not believe that works should commence on the power station without a new road being built purely for that purpose as it will massively effect the amount of cars going through the small town where he lives which will increase traffic, accidents etc."

Peter Stokes
"I am concerned about traffic generated by the project"

Venetia Hawker
"Agree with application"

Alison Easto on behalf of Paul Knight
"Nuclear energy is a crucial component of the UK’s future portfolio of low carbon energy sources, and as such Hinkley C is essential. This project will also create many much needed jobs throughout the UK and importantly enable a supply chain of skills that the UK will be able to use on other future Nuclear programmes around the world. At EEF we support this initiative entirely."

Jean Allen
"I own property immediately next to land where new road to Hinckley is proposed. This obviously has an effect on both the quality of life for my family and the value of my property. I I also have concerns that change of use of this green field land to brown field will open the flood gates for more development around my home."

Stuart Allen
"I own property on land adjacent to open fields where proposed access road to Hinckley may go. I bought the property because of its rural position which now seems at risk."

David Satherley
"I completely agree with the proposed building of Hinkley Point C. The country as a whole will benifit from this reliable and cheap source of energy and the local area will benifit tremendously from the project. I believe nuclear energy is the answer to providing clean safe energy for decades to come. The uk electrical grid system needs a dependable source of electrical generation to remain stable. This should be provded by core generators using nuclear, coal, oil or gas fuels. So called 'green' energy from wind, sun, sea etc all have to be backed up by electricity from the core generators because electricity cannot be stored, it must be produced as required. This increases costs and without the huge subsidies given to 'green' generators they would not be viable and really because their output is weather dependant they cannot be anything other than intermittent power sources, no real use to a dynamic grid system."

Rachel Storey
"Having spent many years holidaying and visiting friends in this area I believe that the proposals for building a new power station is likely to increase the traffic level and cause accidents and general chaos for local residents and holiday makers like ourselves. The current road structure will not able to cope with the large vehicles and volumes of traffic which will be needing to pass through. Access issues for emergency services would be a big concern if there were to be a serious accident and I also wonder what effect this would have on tourism in this area once people realise these will be grid locked roads."

Robert Forgan
"I believe the development will have a serious disruptive impact on my household and my property due to potential increased flood risk, noise polution, increased traffic and access problems. The local leisure activities I currently enjoy will also be serously impacted upon. I believe there will also be a negative impact on the saleability and value of my property."

Nicola Forgan
"I believe the development will have a serious disruptive impact on the local environment, my household and my property due to potential increased flood risk, noise polution, increased traffic and access problems. The local leisure activities I currently enjoy will also be serously impacted upon. I believe there will also be a negative impact on the saleability and value of my property."

TIME Project
"It seems apparent from everything we know and hear regarding power shortages that the country needs this power station, it is good for local people and it meets the low carbon agenda. As the proposed power station is next to Hinkley B, it is hard to imagine how long the process would take if this was a new nuclear site. Taking this into account, the planning and legislation stages seem to be taking a long time, shouldn't we be getting on with it a little quicker in order to be generating power by 2018."

Barry Leathwoood
"I am concerned about the rationale and viability of the Combwich proposals particularly in relation to the laydown area which is on a flood plain and will require a 10.1 hectare area to be raised by almost 1 metre. This together with the planned refurbishment of the wharf will require 933,564 tonnes (DCO Application) of material to be transported to the site in advance of the Cannington by-pass being built. This will require about 90,000 vehicle movements. The site is also proposed for use as a freight consolidation area where loads will be stored for onward transmission to the main site adding even more pressure on the inadequate road system. All this could be avoided it the laydown area was built away for the flood plain preferably at the main HPC construction site I am therefore opposed to the construction of the laydown area for the storage of goods brought in by road transport. I agree with the proposals to use the Combwich Wharf to bring in the large indivisible loads (AILs) of which there now appear to be at least 330 (each requiring 3 tides) during a 4 year period. However I can see no justification for the construction of the other goods wharf when a facility for other goods is being provided by the jetty at the main HPC construction site. I also have concerns about the working hours, noise and light pollution at the wharf and the laydown area. In common with virtually every resident west of Bridgwater I am concerned about the traffic implications with The Cannington by-pass only becoming available 4 years into the sites construction and the lack of Bridgwater by-pass."

Fenton Court
"1. There is as yet no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. 2. Evidence from around the world and Sellfield in the UK, suggests that nuclear power is not safe i.e Leukaemia clusters around nuclear sites and obviously the latest problems in Japan after the tsunami."

Yarlington Housing Group
"Yarlington Housing Group is currently developing 200 affordable homes as part of a 423 home first phase of the 2,000 home development of the North-East Bridgwater urban extension site. The strategic importance of this site is evidenced by the Homes & Communities Agency’s kick-start grant allocation of £11.1 million; the largest such allocation in the country. The total development site includes the Innovia former cellophane works site and the proposed location of the 850 bed Bridgwater A campus. The success of the first phase is critically dependent upon further phases coming forward and creating momentum for essential community facilities such as shops, school and public open space. In our view, the current campus proposals will blight the Innovia and adjoining sites, isolate the first phase for at least 10 years and fundamentally undermine national and local government’s strategic investment. The problem is compounded by EDFe’s intention to develop, operate and remove a de-mountable campus illustrated, in the DCO application, as a sterile barracks-like environment, leaving no legacy other than barren, ex-industrial land and wasted opportunity. The capital cost of the EDFe proposal has been assessed and is greater than the investment required to provide an equally functional campus in a more usual residential form. This alternative • Can be delivered within EDFe’s required timescale • Would not impede or frustrate the reactor project in anyway • Would be readily capable of re-instating as market or affordable homes • Would create a physical legacy and a significant residual value • Would help to sustain the initial progress established on the North-East Bridgwater site • Represents best use of land; a fundamental planning objective ? We have wider concerns about the lack of evidence to support the main assumptions underpinning EDFe’s accommodation strategy. For example, there is no evidence to support the assertions that • up to 1/3 of the construction workforce can be recruited locally or that • workers will be prepared to routinely travel up to 90 minutes without making alternative accommodation arrangements Indications from other similar developments are that construction workers will seek accommodation other than in a campus environment and that non-local workers will seek to minimise personal expenditure by seeking accommodation as close as possible to the construction site. In this instance, the demand will inevitably be focussed on Bridgwater. There is overwhelming evidence of a significant, unmet housing need in Sedgemoor and that many households have to rely upon the limited private rented sector. The introduction, of up to 5,800 construction workers with an unidentified number of supply chain workers, will have the inevitable effect of overwhelming local housing supply, increasing rents and displacing local residents. In summary, The Yarlington representation is that the impact on the local housing market has been understated and that the Bridgwater A campus proposals will have damaging, long-term consequences for the local authority’s largest strategic residential site at North-east Bridgwater. Signed Roger Powell Chairman and Gary Orr Chief Executive Yarlington Housing Group Lupin Way Yeovil BA22 8WN Registered Charity No 1108793"

Judith Nealon
"My biggest concern is the transport links to access this site. From evidence I have read there will be lorries moving through Bridgwater and Cannington at 60 an hour approxiamately. I have a big interest in Cannington as I visit the local URC church there on a regular basis and I also work in and around the Bridgwater area so travel and getting to appointments would be problem when there is extra traffic on the road. Our roads are not really built for heavy vehicles and a new road from Dunball roundabout would cut out all this congestion and keep our roads safer. We may be seen to reduce out carbon footprint through the generation of power by these methods but increase it greatly with increased traffic through a built up area. My other concern is the size of the plant that will be built at Hinckley... these are ugly blots on the landscape and although I would want the next generation to enjoy the facilites of electric in housholds I think it very short sighted to just replace nuclear with nuclear when there are other options... such as a servern barrage. We have one of the highest tidal areas in the world and could harness electricity in a much safer way. Menai straight has a turbine which is lowered into the water to provide electricity and then when the tide is out the wildlife uses it as a rock to bask on...they have adapted to this as Im sure would happen here. It also seems to me that there are alot of people who just see pound signs when something like this is proposed... our life here is short and we seem to destroy so much which is of value to a satisfying lifestyle... as an agriculturalist I would want to enhance the land so it is in good condition for the next generation to enjoy."

Advance Fixings
"I think the project should go ahead as it will provide a tremendous boost for local trade."

CND Cymru
"1. As close neighbours of any developments in Somerset, the People of Wales are a legitimate interested party in relation to this application. The Welsh population and their land could well be affected by any radioactive discharges whether intentional or accidental from the planned reactors. Radionucleides know no boundaries and therefore our local environment could well be polluted, in the short or long term by developments at Hinkley Point. Any discharge or accident at Hinkley Point would affect Wales as much as Somerset. According to the Environment Agency’s EPR Assessment Report in 2009, it is expected that each year the proposed nuclear reactor would emit to air 500 GBq (5) of tritium; 350 GBq of carbon-14; 800 GBq of radioactive noble gases and 50 MBq of radioiodines. This would increase Hinkley B’s current gaseous emissions by 20% (H-3) to 30% (C-14). 2. Research has already highlighted the dangers of pollution by nuclear power stations in Europe. In November 2011, German data revealed large spikes in radioactive gas releases during the refuelling of Nuclear Power Plants. Higher doses from these nuclide spikes may well explain the increased incidences of child leukaemias near Nuclear Power Plants shown by the German Government’s KiKK findings. *KiKK: Childhood Leukaemia in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants in Germany Peter Kaatsch, Dr. rer. physiol.,*1 Claudia Spix, Priv.-Doz. Dr. rer. nat.,1 Irene Jung,1 and Maria Blettner, Prof. Dr. rer. nat.1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/ *CERRIE: http://www.cerrie.org/pdfs/cerrie_report_e-book.pdf 3. Planning permission must take into account the potential effects of such pollution on local services, health, safety and emergency planning for a period of time well-beyond the foreseeable future. The public would have no opportunity to protect their health through being informed on daily discharge levels and there is no mechanism whereby the public could hold both site operators and the regulators to account. 4. There is always the potential for a storm surge, tsunami or flooding in the hinterland of the Severn and Bristol Channel (as in 1607). Sea rises are predicted as a result of climate change. 5. The risks inherent in nuclear power would not be acceptable under any health and safety regimes; insurance companies are not prepared to cover nuclear power plants against accidents and many of the massive costs of compensation - and decommissioning – are underwritten by the taxpayer. 6. Local and national Governments in Britain are obliged to work under environmentally sustainable principles, a new nuclear power station at Hinkley would be completely environmentally unsustainable – our grand children’s grandchildren will still be dealing with our nuclear waste and contamination. 7. Residents in South Wales are already concerned for the possible effects on their children’s health and future by the present Hinkley Point nuclear power station. 8. The proposed nuclear power stations would be increased dangers to the health of populations of both Wales and England. 9. There are alternatives to nuclear which could be built more quickly than nuclear and would be more secure, safer and more effective. 10. The proposed development should be rejected outright."

Simon Kearn
"As a regular visitor to family in the area and the Quantox for sports, I am well aware of the present traffic congestion and road conditions. There is only one route to Hinkley which is single carriageway. I believe that the nature of existing roads will not cope with the proposed increase of traffic, both volume and payloads. Talking to people within the community it does not appear that any attention has been paid to their concerns by EDF in this respect. The community are totally anti the proposals as EDF are well aware, yet they continue to publish misleading propaganda claiming that the community are greatly in favour of their proposals. If Government see fit to proceed with the construction of these two new, as yet to be proven reactors, it is vital that a second route be constructed from the motorway directly to Hinkley. This is a necessity, not only for the quality of live for the community but also a major safety issue. In the event of accidents along this current route access by the three emergency services will be more often greatly impaired. In the event of a major incident at Hinkley itself, this would result in panic, chaos and a large loss of life. Please do not recommend this application without a second access road."

Tim Jones on behalf of Annie Jones
"I support the construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. Our concerns relate to the infrastructure proposed to facilitate that construction and fall into two main areas. 1. Roads I am not satisfied that proposed traffic easing measures are adequate or even well thought out. The C182 is already busy at peak times (shift changes) and in particular during outages. I have seen little research to justify EDF's traffic flow models. I am far from convinced that park and ride schemes will be effective in reducing large amounts of workers' vehicles using the C182. Any car pass scheme - which would need checking at the Hinkley end - would quickly cause lengthy tailbacks causing potential problems for emergency vehicles. At times it will be very difficult and dangerous to enter and exit Combwich by vehicle. The C182 had a very bad reputation as a dangerous road during the construction of Hinkley B - it has been described as an upgraded country lane and is frequented by slow moving agricultural machinery EDF's proposals for traffic mitigation are poorly thought out and should have taken some account of the Hinkley site as a whole - construction, generation and decommissioning will be continuing there for decades and Hinkley C should have provided the catalyst for looking at ways to counter the traffic issues that will raise. It cant be done in retrospect. 2. Combwich The plans for the wharf are out of all proportion to what this facility was orginally designed for - to enable large loads to be brought in and taken out by sea. I have no objection to that, but EDF's proposals to turn it into an incredibly busy port with the disruption that will cause seem poorly thought out. The major refurbishment to the wharf to enable many more loads to be brought in will be imense as the physical shape of the harbour - which is within 100 metres of dwellings - amplifies sound. It must be remembered this river is on an estuary with the second highest rise and fall of tide in the world. Whatever they do will not make it easy getting in and out of the wharf. The huge lay down area proposed for the extra loads will create a giant industrial estate in a rural area and again is out of all proportion to such a small rural port. EDFs argument that the facility will save thousands of lorry movements does not make sense as to create the laydown area will require tens of thousands of extra lorry movements - all before the Cannington by-pass is built. Finally a general comment: I was disappointed with the EDF consultation process as it simply offered people choices of A, B and in some cases C missing the opportunity of proper engagement about why A, b or C had been chosen in the first place. It was a process that seemed to take the nuclear industry back to its old ways of decide, announce, defend."

A E Fraser
"As one of the Sedgemoor District Council Ward Members for North Petherton and a Trustee of Brainwave I should like to register with the IPC and make the following observations: I welcome the project in principal for the opportunities it will bring to the district for greater employment, future investment and the raising of standards of skills and employment potential of young people in the area. I am particularly encouraged by the investment made already by EDF Energy in the Energy Skills Centre at Bridgwater College and its potential investment at Cannington in the Construction Skills Centre. I would like to register my concern in relation to the increased volume of traffic around J.24 of the M5 and the Huntworth Roundabout that I believe will be created during the construction phase of the development. The flow of traffic, related to the construction, along the A38 into Bridgwater could impact adversely on local traffic and lead to increased congestion. I am also concerned about the proximity of the Park and Ride site and planned development at the ‘old’ Somerfield site on Huntworth Business Park to the HQ of the national charity Brainwave. I think it could have a detrimental impact on the charity’s work with families from around the UK and from overseas in helping brain-injured children to develop to their maximum potential. To facilitate this work the children need to be in a quiet and stress-free atmosphere."

Cyfeillion y Ddaear Cymru
"Byddaf yn gosod tystiolaeth gerbron y CCI bod eich penderfyniad i beidio canfod dogfennau dwyieithog yn groes i ofynion y Confensiwn Arhus ac felly yn anghyfreithlon. Yn ogystal, bydd Cyfeillion y Ddaear Cymru yn dadlau: - Nad oes modd rhoi sel bendith ar sail cynllunio i'r atomfa tra bod dim penderfyniad wedi'i wneud ynghylch y gwastraff ymbelydrol fydd yn deillio o'r herwydd. - Nad oes cyfiawnhad dros lygredd ymbelydrol ymhellach yn y Mor Hafren, yn enwedig pan gall yr ymbelydredd fod yn niweidiol i iechyd pobl Cymru - Nid yw'r safle yn addas ar gyfer atomfa wrth ystyried rhagolygon codiad lefel y mor fel canlyniad i newid hinsawdd - Mae'r broses ei hun yn annemocrataidd, yn esgeuluso hawliau pobl Cymru a siaradwyr Cymraeg yn llwyr - Nid oes digon o sylw wedi'i daro at oblygiadau damwain Fukushima. Mae'n rhy fuan i wybod a oes 'na gwersi i'w dysgu - Gall ddamwain niwclear dinistrio de Cymru'n llwyr, gan arwain at gwymp sylweddol gymdeithasol a llywodraethol"

Sian Howson
"The risks of nuclear power is extreamly high. A large population live near here and some of the most beautiful and diverse animal life. I am most concerned about the waste. The UK has so far not been able to find a suitable long term solution to managing nuclear waste. Given the longest standing man made structure has lasted 5000 years and we have to keep nuclear waste for well over 100,000 years before it is safe, this to me is t high a risk and damaging to all."

Mervyn P Brown
"This development has the potential to change the nature of our small residential village for all time. I am not aginst the principal of nucler power, nor the construction of C station but any works in our Parish should be sensitive to the nature of this quiet cul-de-sac village. My family's main concern is the applicant's plans for freight lay-down area on 10 hectares of agricultural land which will cause noise nuisance, increase the flood risk and destroy the peace in our homes. During the wharf and freight area construction we will suffer noise vibration and light pollution. The wharf development I accept but there must be restrictions on the time of construction and subsequent use. Mitigation measures and compensation will be essential for our small community. The other headache for us is the pressure on the C182, our only route out of the village - 2,000 vehicle movements are predicted passed our junction. We shall live in fear of major accidents on a regular basis."

R Hunt
"We do not have any objections in principle to the building of Hinkley C. But we are very concerned what it is going to do to our village and in particular to the roads in our area. Bridgwater will become gridlocked the A38 and A39 will be a nightmare to travel on.We feel that the only way to avoid this is to build a road directly from M5 junction23 to Hinkley Point as has been suggested by local people for more than two years(and is also backed by the previous Hinkley Enquiry)"

C Freeman
"I do not want a minimum of 900 trafic movements through Bridgwater from J23 M5 every day. Bridgwater is already under lots of trafic as it is , so we do not want lots more trafic in town. I suggest the solution to this problem is a Northern Bypass for Bridgwater. This will envolve a bridge over the river Parett . Big ships no longer go up to Bridgwater so provided the bridge was sitted in such a location that ships can still easily get to the dock at Dunball and turn around I see no reason why a normal bridge cannot be built , an expensive swing bridge would not be nessecery. The new road would end up at the roundabout by the Cannington bypass and a turn right part way along the new road would see another new road link into the main Hinkley road from Cannington thus improving and reducing the trafic in Bridgwater. The Hinkley trafic would now also bypass Cannington as well so everyone is a winner. Now with all this it would be easy to get your goods to site."

David Allen
"I am writing this to inform the people conserned that I feel the trouble that will be caused on the small roads in and around the village of Cannington, I travel to Cannington to visit my retired parents and my sister, the congestion on the roads through Bridgwater to Cannington will only be made worse by the interduction of yet more heavy lorries trying to force there way along a single lane road and through the somewhat narrow parts of the village it's self. I the summer season the roads are congested with holiday makers towing caravans heading for the coast, farm vehicles such as tractors and trailers and it will only be made much, much worse by the influx of the 750 or so 30 ton lorries, as well as transport coachies and private cars jamming up the roads on they way to and from Hinkley,"

Sandra Schweiso
"i am worried about the effects on local roads, communications, and services of the large influx of people needed to construct and operate the power station. Work is already beginning even though planning permission does not seem to have been granted, and EDF is not taking the transport problems seriously."

Azeema Caffoor
"I am against the nuclear power station as am extemely worried about the chemical and enviromental damage that may be caused and potential for leaks and unforeseen disasters."

Carol Edwards on behalf of Bradley Edwards
"This will affect me because I will not be able to walk to school or go out with my friends to the park because there will be a lot more traffic going through the village, especially lorries. Also, as I live is near the roundabout in Cannington, when I’m out in my garden playing, all I will be able to hear is the traffic going backwards and forwards."

PX Manufacturing & Distribution Ltd
"we agree that the scheme for Hinkley should proceed so that we can keep our generating capacity up to an acceptabl;e standard and help to protect the environment"

Lynn Lovell
"The land of England belongs not to the Government but to the people. This is not a frivolous statement. I fully object to any development of the land which jeopodizes the health of the people. After Chernobyl and now Fuckoshima it's not possible to argue that this development is safe. In my opinion it is not democratic for the Central Government to override the objections of local people or to propagate information which gives a false impression and/or does not reveal the full risks. At the moment I am awaiting the birth of my grandchild and have no access to evidence/proof until I return home hopefully by the end of the month. Meanwhile I refer you to the research of Dr Chris Busby. I will communicate again after the birth. I cannot concentrate on other things right now. Yours sincerely Lynn lovell"

Tracey Pike on behalf of Bridgwater Bay Health Federation
"1. Health care facilities / access to Primary Care during work and after completion EDF have said that they will be providing an independent healthcare facility on site. We have insufficient information about the scope of the medical care available. Will it be available 24 hours, will medication be provided, will there be ongoing care of long term conditions or will it just be an acute minor illness type service, how will referrals into secondary care be made? If, for whatever reason, employees do not wish to access this then they will be looking to see a GP in the area. We know that there will be thousands of people who will be employed or sub contracted to work in the construction phase which is approx 10 years, but many may decide to settle in the area with families now or in the future If this is the case this will have an impact on the population of the area, which will put increasing pressure on the health services within the area, along with other services. We also need to give consideration to the fact that although the construction is approx 10 years HPC will be operational for at least 60years. 2.Health/ Traffic related issues In the Bridgwater area we have many Red Routes (dangerous roads). The amount of HGV's, buses ( for the park and rides) and other associated traffic will put additional strain on the road network. Without stringent, enforceable safety measures in place especially on the Red Routes there could be an increase in accidents which will put more pressure on emergency services and hospitals. When an accident happens in the area now the road network can become gridlocked, so when there are more vehicles on the road this congestion will get even worse. Apart from the frustration of delays for everyone and time lost for business etc there could be potentially serious delays for emergency vehicles getting out to some of the more rural areas. 3. Mental health and well being of existing patients affected by Hinkley C There are also implications for the mental health and general well being of current residents. Increased traffic, noise and other pollution from the construction work and concerns about property values could all affect the mental health of residents and discourage people from healthy lifestyles. 4. Unknown future Health issues Also with so many construction workers (many will be male) moving into the temporary accommodation which EDF are hoping to build, there could be an increase in sexual health needs for the existing population, and possible increased pregnancy rates. We understand that there will be strict codes regarding the use of alcohol and other substances but should we be concerned about rates of alcohol and drug abuse and their consequences? 5. Water Table for Somerset Construction industry/ concrete industry massive user of water supplies, this will impact on the water table of our area and will have implications for our environment and habitat and future water available for everyday use, may see water shortages in future"

Philip Andrew Cooper
"The access arrangements are totally unsatisfactory for the construction of this power station and will result in heavy inappropriate traffic passing through town centres and small country lanes with a detrimental effect on the local environment for a number of years- a northern access route is possible with a new river bridge and this would be much more statisfactiory"

Stephen Mewes on behalf of Tessa Munt MP
"• As the disaster at Fukushima showed, there are serious risks associated with nuclear power. Countries are reviewing their nuclear programmes and regulatory regimes to protect their reactors from the sorts of extreme events that caused the Fukushima disaster. • As this process is still on-going, this application cannot be in line with international best practice, as there is not yet any consensus as to the best way to protect reactors and, more importantly, members of the public, from major disasters. • When this application was submitted, an English translation of the Japanese government’s report into the disaster had not been made public. This is likely to contain several lessons for the UK nuclear industry and its regulators. • Dr Weightman’s report for the Office of Nuclear Regulation into the lessons that the nuclear industry, government and the regulators needed to learn from Fukushima pointed to several areas where improvements needed to be made to the knowledge base, reactor design or emergency response procedures. These issues have not yet been fully addressed. • Nonetheless, EDF Energy / NNB GenCo submitted its application just 20 days after Dr Weightman’s report was published. It cannot have addressed all the issues that Dr Weightman raised. • Local councils have raised concerns about traffic problems and the impact of thousands of construction workers moving to temporary accommodation in the area. • There is a serious risk of flooding at the Hinkley Point site. That the sites could “have the potential to be protected from flooding” does not mean that the flood defence plans are sufficient to protect the site. • The emergency response plans are not fit for purpose. The UK government is still conducting a review into the Japanese emergency response to the earthquake and tsunami, as Dr Weightman recommended. This is on-going and any conclusions for the UK’s civil contingency planning cannot have been taken into account when preparing this application."

Ann Hudson
"On 21st September 2010 David Eccles Head of EDF's Bridgwater office stated, 'the infrastructure is fragile.' I have studied the Development Consent Order Application and none of the Highway Improvement Measures convince me that they will prevent Bridgwater being gridlocked. As a resident of Puriton I am especially concerned about the pressure being placed on Junction 23 of the M5 and the effects the freight logistics facility at Dunball will have on traffic accessing Bridgwater from the north along the A38 which is mainly a single carriageway road. In fact following the Stage 1 consultation additional pressure has been placed on Junction 23 with increased freight facilities focused on the motorway and increased park and ride facilities at Dunball. The Transport Strategy uses the phrases 'minimise the volume of traffic', 'minimise the impact', 'take all reasonable steps to ensure'. The statements in Workforce Movement and HGV Routes are too vague, 'will be developed', 'releasedn a manner that moderates' - very easy to say but in reality what do they all actually mean? Having attended all consultation exhibitions I am still endeavouring to obtain a definition of the well used phrase 'peak hours'. In my opinion the park and ride movements will be dictated by shift patterns and freight movements by need. The traffic will travel along ordinary roads not highways and as a result the lives of local people will be affected day in day out for a very long time. EDF has admitted that only about 30% of the jobs will be for local people. I am concerned about the impact large numbers of migrant workers plus in some instances their families will have on:- a. the price of rented properties and the housing market. b. the demand for primary and secondary school places. c. medical services at GP and hospital level. d. the availability of jobs when family members of the workers seek work . Accommodaton at Bridgwater A and C is a too greater concentration of worker numbers in one area of the town. Traffic will increase with workers being bussed to and from the site and workers using private vehicles in their free time. Bridgwater C increases traffic flow in an already very busy area with students attending Bridgwater College. I am in favour of nuclear power rather than renewables such as wind turbines but I cannot stress enough the importance of EDF making sure that further consideration is given to the quality of life of the residents of Sedgemoor and West Somerset. They are the people who have to live through the construction period."

RAC Foundation for Motoring
"The RAC Foundation for Motoring is a charity which explores the economic, mobility, safety and environmental issues relating to roads and responsible road users. Independent and authoritative research, carried out for the public benefit, is central to the Foundation's activities. It is not a membership organisation. The staff and voluntary Network respond to and seek advice from the Foundation's Board of Trustees and Public Policy Committee. The scope of the RACF's remit means that it has no view on the merits or otherwise of the proposed nuclear installation as such. The RACF would press that the road network affected by the construction and operation of the new power station should be developed to meet the needs of both the additional traffic associated with the new facility and all other traffic using the network; either for local access or travelling through the area. The RACF supports the proposals to transport by sea equipment and materials to/from the development site where feasible and the associated facilities, since that would reduce pressure on the road system. Likewise it would support freight transport by rail if a need emerged. The RACF notes with disappointment EDF Energy's decision not to build or fund a Bridgwater northern by-pass, and the funding, timing, engineering & environmental factors which lie behind that decision. The Foundation believes that the IPC should expressly address that decision. The RACF generally supports and welcomes the particular road schemes and improvements which EDF Energy have proposed and agreed to fund. But the Foundation is not satisfied that in total the proposed works will achieve what is needed. In particular - the proposed routing of HGVs between M5 Junction 24 and A39 west of Bridgwater via the A38 and the town centre might still overload that route and cause unacceptable intrusion to the residential property through which it passes and/or delay to motorists on journeys which use and/or cross that route; and - further improvements may be needed to the A39, especially the design of the park & ride and associated access to the present Cannington by-pass and more widely on that principal road; and to the alternative route between West Somerset & Exmoor, Williton and the M5 avoiding Bridgwater & Hinkley Point traffic which is provided by the A358 and Junction 25 [Taunton]."

Andrew Beard on behalf of Avon and Somerset Constabulary ("ASP")
"Avon and Somerset Constabulary (“ASP”) is responsible for providing police services in relation to impacts arising from the Hinckley Point C Development. It is understood the Government’s view is major infrastructure developments should not have adverse impacts on taxpayers and within the planning regime planning obligations are required to mitigate impacts of the development. This development is an Environmental Impact Assessment application whereby socio-economic impacts of the development are assessed. The socio-economic impacts will result from a large and transient workforce, introduced into the area and the intensification of activity and use including residential accommodation sites ASP do not agree with EDF’s findings in relation to socio-economic impacts and consider them in many areas understated and based on examples which are now out dated in relation to the wider community and protest and global climate awareness. ASP are pleased to note that EDF accept planning obligations will be required to mitigate the impacts upon the Police service and an initial proposal regarding the Community Beat Team; Intelligence Team; and equipment has been put forward. The key issues in relation to socio-economic impacts arising from the development which will require mitigation relates to the following:- (i) Significant increase in work force population that brings a transient population impacting upon general policing, community safety, increase in crime; (ii) Increase need for equipment and facilities in regard to direct impacts of the increased workforce and the resultant increase of crimes and events associated; (iii) Protest and disturbances at the main build and associated developments; (iv) Police resources to comment, monitor, manage and assess documents in line with EDF Energy’s, Emergency Services Local Authority Group, Community Safety Management Plan, Traffic Incident Management Plan, Outline Contingency Response Arrangements, Strategic Relationship Protocol and contact with its Community Liaison Officer; (v) Incident and intelligence planning in terms of operations; (vi) Poor Airwave communications at the HPC site, surrounding communities and C182 road network which will serve construction traffic; (vii) Increased volume of traffic movements to and from the HPC site, associated developments and dedicated routes within the TIMP area, leading to an increase in Road Traffic Collisions and traffic delays requiring policing attendance. Avon and Somerset Constabulary set out the following factors in relation to a transient workforce:- A transient workforce will bring disproportional increase of issues of crime and events; because - (a) The increase forms a largely male dominant workforce without direct family ties or supervision in the area; (b) Normally higher than average levels of foreign workers creating implications for highway code knowledge, language, cultural issues; (c) Increase impacts upon the night time economy due to mainly single population having available monies to spend. There will be direct increased police work as a result of development regarding inter alia – • Increased pressure from additional workforce population; • Community related disagreements causing disorder requiring police presence, ASB associated with integration of workforce/workforce accommodation; • Crime on sites requiring police attendance; • Liaison with EDF CLO and engagement in stakeholder monitoring groups; • Increased Night Time Economy; • Community tensions and traffic related matters; • Protests. There are direct impacts on the following areas:- • Community safety; • Crime and disorder; • Traffic incidents; • Workforce; • Protests; and • Communications. These aspects have to be covered with full mitigation proposals via developers planning obligations and whilst ongoing discussions are underway with EDF, ASP are dissatisfied with the mitigation being proposed as insufficient in scale for the implications this infrastructure project will create. ASP is of the view all these issues are a direct result of the development and impact in the local area which are planning related and thereby necessary for the application to proceed In relation to community safety, crime and disorder, traffic incidents and workforce the main issue is agreeing the appropriate level of resources as the principles appear to have been agreed with EDF. In relation to protests and communications, there appears to be no agreement in principle and ASP will request the IPC to consider these aspects should be fully addressed by the Development Consent Order and appropriate mitigation in relation to protest and communication is secured in order for the development to proceed."

David Theobald
"I have worked at Hinkley Point continuously since 1978. First employed a s a Health Physics Monitor, senior trade union representative and finally as the HR Manager. I have at various times been involved as a Health & Safety Rep, Senior Lay Rep at the Regional T&GWU, local County Council member and Justice of the Peace. I have always thought myself to be objective and fair minded. In all my time (over 34 years) I have been always impressed at the way in which this industry conducts itself when dealing with Health & Safety - compared with many other industries it has an exemplory track record. I am appalled at times at the way some pressure groups conduct themselves in distributing what can only be described as 'scare stories' when considering the impact on the local and surounding area from any radiation levels eminating from this site. I can honestly say that the health and welfare of the workforce has not been adversely affected by this industry, and so one must conclude that the impact on the local and surrounding areas must also be minimal at the very least. All objective scientific reports have reinforced the safety record of this industry and countered any adverse claim of health issues arising from radiation leakages expounded by others. As a trade union representative, I have been involved in health issues arising from the construction of the A site - but those have been soley linked to asbestosis, nothing to do with radiation. Both my father and (two) children, two brothers-in-laws and various cousins have been working onm this site - none have exhibited the slightest indication of health related problems linked to the activities on this site. In summary, I do not believe that allowing another nuclear unit at Hinkley Point poses any significant risk (radiological or otherwise) to the health of the surrounding population. This country has/will experience a short fall in its ability to continue to provide the nations requirements for electricity unless new generation is built in the next few years. Successive governments (until this one) have spectacularly chosen not to tackle this issue in a constructive, balanced way. Fossil fuels are limited and will continue to increase in price, alternatives are still technically not fully developed, and in some cases grossly exagerated in their benefits - witness the costs of wind turbines. It has to be so that for the next fifty years nuclear generation has to have a role to play in a balanced energy policy. The concerns over health issues are unfounded, whilst the costs of decommissioning are being brought under control as we improve our understanding. New build construction and design now cater for the back-end deconstruction of sites, so that the future costs of decommissioning are significantly less (in relavent terms) than the original designs of the 1950's and 60's. I believe there is a wealth of evidence that supports the construction of a new build site at Hinkley Point. Security of future electricity supply and back-end costs for new reactors are now well known and affordable. Health issues related to nuclear generation are, effectively not an issue to either workers on the plant or to the local and wider population. I also believe that there is wide spread support for the construction of a new site within the local population - the economic benefits of which have already been communicated."

Barbara J Oates
"Health and Social Impact: Loss of community fabric and way of life on most levels as consequence of development work & practices with no mitigating benefits or compensating facilities – severe consequence for health and social cohesion - already manifesting itself in the community. Severe disruption to patterns of daily life with no satisfactory alternative options available – current mitigation and compensation packages inadequate/stringent and do not apply to all local residents. Concessions to make life bearable are required. 24/7 working for a decade would be insupportable. Nearest residents would get no respite from noise, dust or light pollution with consequent health/well-being issues. On-site Campus: Residents resolutely do not wish a hostel of any size; makes privileged ghetto ten times size of and far too close to nearest hamlet; possible law and order issues; socially deeply insensitive and divisive; workers should be integrated in community, thus providing legacy housing following build. Hostel buildings far too large; proposing a very noticeable, 3-storey building out of keeping with locality on a greenfield site and overlooking nearby homes; wholly inadequate landscape mitigation. Leisure facilities on site should be placed in community as ‘legacy’. Five-a-side football on campus ludicrous proposition as denoting ‘shared leisure’; no other forms or opportunities for social integration proposed. Noise, and light pollution from campus and proposed on site leisure facilities both during its building phase and for years afterwards. Too many car-parking spaces which will increase noise and light pollution (as would factoring in service vehicles to campus), making a nonsense of claim that hostel would reduce traffic on C182 to significant degree. Numbers of residents in hostel too high. No reasonable justification is given for ‘510 workers’. With their cars would increase traffic on lanes. No suggestion of monitoring the effect of additional vehicles on local narrow lanes. Recreation and Amenities: Loss of landscape and 14 km of PROWS with no guarantee of appropriate and adequate replacements, easy access to open air without use of car lost, and use of gardens so valued by residents to be rendered impossible owing to noise. Loss of access to countryside forces walkers onto busy roads already much used by cyclists, riders, farm traffic and other vehicles. Local residents want roll back from southern boundary, not to have to wait until PS completed to have landscape restored. Visual impact of emergency road and Bum Brook bridge. Traffic Traffic on narrow local lanes will massively increase and become dangerous owing to hostel service personnel and workers from hostel seeking recreation/exploration. Junctions from lanes onto main roads dangerous. Concern about quoted aspirational numbers at Visitors’ Centre – not factored into total numbers of traffic movements on C182. Amount of traffic will impede or prevent normal conduct of local daily life. All traffic from Williton should stick to A39 including site buses. Emergency evacuation of workers on site has not been thought through. One breakdown, flood or blockage of proposed route would mean total gridlock of whole area."

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)
"CND is opposed to a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point because nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Moreover, construction and operation of Hinkley Point C will have a significantly detrimental impact on the local area and will put the local population at risk. In addition, the plant will not be built in time to make the cuts in carbon emissions we need to make now, especially taking into account the serious delays already being experienced in construction in France and Finland with the proposed design. Renewable energy measures and energy efficiency are cleaner, cheaper and safer and can make the difference in time. Serious traffic congestion Massive traffic congestion will be caused by the project because the road infrastructure is not sufficient to absorb such an increased capacity, especially where there are already problems. This will impact greatly upon local people causing significant disruption to their lives. Such congestion will hinder emergency vehicle access to the area. Tourism and farming businesses will be negatively affected. Pollution will increase. Health risk to the local population Incidents leading to leaks and spillages of radioactive materials are not uncommon at nuclear plants, sometimes leading to their temporary closure. As with any industry, every eventuality cannot be predicted; each accident is caused by a different set of errors whether human, mechanical or both depending on a different set of circumstances. Unlike most other industries, however, every nuclear reactor carries with it the risk of catastrophic accident like the most recent at Fukushima. Evacuation plans in such an eventuality would be seriously hampered by problems with congestion as outlined above. Meanwhile, concerns about the risk from ionising radiation exposure from permitted releases are borne out by epidemiological research. Studies continue to suggest increased rates of cancer around nuclear power stations, particularly among children. Safety risk to the local population Every nuclear power station is a potential target for terrorism. The plants and the highly radioactive waste must be kept secure from attack or theft of radioactive materials. Flooding risk Hinkley Point power station is at risk from flooding, and increasingly so with sea rises associated with climate change. Highly radioactive waste storage Spent fuel from new plants will need to be stored on site for up to 160 years. During that time it will need to be kept safe and secure from the impacts of flooding, acts of terrorism, and accidents. This fuel will be hotter and more radioactive thus increasing the complexities of trying to store it safely and securely and the risk of worker and public radiation exposure. Local services and infrastructure may not cope with workers’ influx A number of workers coming from outside the area, with accommodation and other needs, will place extra pressure on local public services already likely to be affected by cuts. Loss of important wildlife habitats As well as the destruction of hundreds of acres of wildlife habitat, Hinkley C will impact upon marine life and protected areas of land surrounding the plant."

David Cleaveley
"Following the publication of the plans for the new power station at Hinkley point I note the proposed development of the accommodation blocks within Bridgwater specifically the development on the old Cellophane site, I am a user of the playing fields that the complex will be built on. I am concerned that there appears to be no consideration for future playing fields that will allow us to continue our activities. I would request that full consideration be given to include providing at minimum the same area of playing fields and facilities, these should be in place and usable before the existing areas and provision is stopped by this development. Great numbers of people (adults and children) enjoy these facilities every week, any interruption of availability would have a devastating effect on the area and people that use it. To be clear, any preplanning or planning application must ensure that the green areas used within the Bridgwater sports and social club grounds should be replaced with equivalent or better facilities and be 100% operational before the existing provision is removed or developed"

Cannington Health Centre
"As a local health care organisation we are concerned about the following aspects of the project: 1. the effect on primary and secondary health care provision, in particular the potential additional demand placed on GP surgeries 2. the effect of construction traffic on the road network of the area - increasing the risk of accidents; increasing risk of gridlock in the area with the adverse impact on local businesses, tourism, accessibility for emergency services etc 3.The effects of associated pollution (noise, air), increased traffic and decreasing house prices on the physical and mental well being of local residents (our patients). 4. the provision for contraception and sexual health needs given the anticipated inrease in lone male workers 5. the effect on the water table and environment of the huge demand for water during the construction period 6. last but not least, the safety measures in the event of a catastrophic event such as the Japanese earthquake and tsunami"

Mrs Janet Parry
"Having attended most of the meetings in the village for EDF Stage 1 and 2 consultations I was very hopeful that EDF were interested in what local people thought of their proposals, but I soon realised that they had their own agenda and had already decided which way they were going. They have not listened first and foremost how can they build Hinkley C without a Bridgwater and Cannington by-pass in place. EDF option just for Cannington by-pass wihout any by-pass proposed for Bridgwater is insane!!! They intend to start work on site preparations with any by-pass in Cannington being built,which will mean about 300 to 400 lorries a day passing Bridgwater and through Cannington. The village cannot sustain this volume of traffic it will make village life impossible The A39 road from Bridgwater already has several accidents a year and traffic from Bridgwater through to the villages is gridlocked, emergency vehicles have great difficulty getting through, imagine with the extra volume of traffic that Hinkley C will bring it will be a nightmare . Somerset County Council have already stated that by 2015 Bridgwater will already be gridlocked that is just the increase in normal traffic without EDF volume of traffic for HinkleyC We have asked for EDF to consider a Northern by-pass from Dunball which will by-pass Bridgwater and surrounding villages . They have refused to even consider this option which to everyone else makes sense,they state that it takes more time to build and extra costs I dont think they have really looked into this option because their minds were already made up lets go for the cheapest option Please I ask you to look upon their application and see all the misery it will bring to Bridgwater and surrounding villages when there is a easier option which makes more sense for everyone PLEASE let common sense prevail."

Jane Taunton
"Factually incorrect information about Stogursey (3.14): a village, not hamlet. Misleading information about population of parish (6.2.2) About 1300. Stogursey High Street narrow with cars parked on one side and an exit from the school directly onto the road with no pavement. Already problems. Application contains incomplete and conflicting information about bus traffic through Stogursey. Is it 15 seaters to pick up workers from Stogursey according to a plan or all 15 seaters to travel through Stogursey in case pickup needed? Main bus routes eg from Minehead appear to be routed through Stogursey too, whilst also stated that Stogursey will be avoided by 25 seaters. Cannington bypass should be built before starting works. Heavy goods vehicles and cars to the site will cause gridlock in Cannington, a rural shopping centre.Back lanes, currently used mainly by farm vehicles and local traffic, will be used as short cuts and there will be blockages and increased risk of accidents. Park and Rides should also be completed before starting HPC work, not by 2016, as stated (8.2.8). The C182 will have such a heavy volume of traffic, including from Combwich Wharf, that it will be difficult for residents of villages and hamlets off the C182 to get onto the C182. Back lanes, currently used mainly by farm vehicles and local traffic, will be used as shortcuts and there will be blockages and increased risk of accidents. Number of working shifts should be reduced to two (as earlier proposed) to reduce number of changeovers and allow local residents ‘a breather’ from HPC traffic. On site hostel too big, relative to the size of Stogursey Parish, which it adjoins. Max 100 key workers. The proposal for on site burial of nuclear waste risks impacting on nearby communities including Bridgwater: blue lias coastline eroding, rising sea levels, evidence of possible tidal wave in past."

Bernard John Anthony Coleman
"I have no problem about the ma nufacture of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley point, but deem it unsatisfactory that it be built by EDF,critical that the nuclear waste be transported and stored safely.If it is true what Pawlett Parish Council predicts,that there will be a minimumof 900 traffic movements through Bridgwater from J23 evert day,I believe that will cause great hold-ups and would be a problem to be solved or avoided."

Roy St Pierre
"Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area (one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset, Devon and South Wales, including my friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for it's eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

Mrs Diana Bedford
"We have two main concerns. We have great concern regarding the safety over yet another Nuclear Power Station in the region. The technology to be used by EDF has already been discredited and is very much questioned in France and we feel that previous questions on this issue have not been satisfactorily answered. Our second concern is one surrounding the massively increased traffic in the area, particularly in view of the extra traffic already attracted by the Morrisons development. We are totally opposed to further development of Nuclear Energy on safety and demographic grounds. To argue that there must be a Northern (or Southern) Relief Road would confer tacit agreement to any plans to go ahead with the Nuclear Development, to which we are totally opposed."

Veronica Bowden
"I am opposing this application as Nuclear Power Stations are highly dangerous, it causes cancers in people and animals even when it is working properly. Hinkley point is on an earth fault, so couldn't have chosen a worse position to put it, also there has been a tsunami in this area about 400 years ago and between the earth fault and tsunami no amount of high walls can guarantee that it is completely safe. If this did happen many thousands of people would die, West Somerset and surrounding area would be a no go zone, the west country and parts of Wales wouldn't be much better and the prevailing wind could affect Bristol and even reach London. It could end up a country wide catastrophe. If this application is accepted and it goes ahead then there is something seriously wrong with the way this planning system works. I say NO NO NO to Hinkley C."

Lynda Upton
"a) The traffic load proposed on the A39 through Bridgwater and surrounding countryside is unsustainable. b) The proposed new Cannington By-pass and other improvements suggested by EDF will not eleviate problems caused by construction traffic using the A39 . c) Traffic through Bridgwater will increase causing even more traffic issues than we have now and in the case of an emergency either by traffic accidents or other causes the whole of the A39 will be gridlocked. d) An answer to traffic problems is not given in the application whereas public opinion favours a dedicated haulage road from Junction 23 of the M5 to the new build and Hinkley Point."

David Penney
"I have concerns over: 1. Safety of Nuclear Power and design of the Reactor 2. The unresolved problem of the management of Radioactive Waste 3. Security Issues around transportation and storage of nuclear materials 4. The link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons 5. Risk of nuclear reactors being the targets of terrorist or other attacks 6. The total cost of the nuclear programme from commisioning to decommissioning 7. The overall detrimental environment impact 8. Ethical issues over tampering with building blocks of the universe"

Nial Woodford
"I am a resident of the village of Stogursey & live a mile south of Hinkley Point. * I have no faith in the integrity of EdF in view of their record in France regarding the phone hacking scandal in connection with Greenpeace. * There has been no material change to EdF's original proposals despite representation of Stogursey residents, including me, at the various consultation events & written representation opportunities. * eg No employee campus should be sited on the work- site. * eg Power cables should be laid underground/under sea to Bristol/Avonmouth. No pylons. * eg Transportation. A bridge should be built over the River Parrett at Dunball to take all site traffic. * eg Working hours as proposed are unacceptable-there will be no peace in the villages. * eg Transportation of contractors from Williton & Minehead should not go through the hamlets."

Deborah Woodford
"I am a resident of Stogursey and live approx. a mile from the Hinkley Point site. I disagree with the application on the following counts:- * EdF has a poor track & safety record in the construction of a similar power station in France. * The phone hacking incident between EdF & Greenpeace is a source of concern regarding the integrity of the company. * The representations both at meetings & in writing have not effected sufficient change to satisfy me. The main areas of concern are as follows: 1. Transportation of materials & employees to and from the site will cause untold problems on the present route planned. A bridge should be built over the River Parrett from the Dunball Wharf directly to the power station site. 2. Transport connected with the site should not travel through the country lanes and hamlets. 3. The employees should not be housed on the site. 4. The hours of work as planned are not reasonable for a rural residential community. 5. Power cables should be underground and no consideration should be given to the erection of enormous pylons."

Kerris Casey-St.Pierre
"Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area (one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset, Devon and South Wales, including my friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for it's eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

North Cumbria CND
"We are writing from Cumbria to object as there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for its eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment. Furthermore it puts pressure on our county Cumbria at present addressing the problem of the mountain of nuclear waste already simmering in store on our west coast at Sellafield. Has this new-build nuclear power station at Hinkley Point an unwritten invitation to send its waste to join this? Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area (one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset, Devon and South Wales, including family and friends of our members, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the members of Cumbria CND, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer."

Somerset Rural Youth Project
"Somerset Rural Youth Project's Mission is to work with rural young people in Somerset, encouraging them to take responsibility for themselves and become actively involved in shaping the communities in which they live: rural regeneration using strategic youth work methods. SRYP has a vision of a Somerset where rural young people feel a sense of belonging, a willingness to contribute and a future that is not limited by access to opportunities and services. The organisations aim is to engage and support young people in rural areas in a range of social, economic, educational and recreational opportunities designed to encourage social inclusion and life-long learning. To achieve this SRYP has developed a range of activities that target the following objectives: • To address issues of rural exclusion, isolation and disadvantage that affect young people. • To increase the take up of training and employment opportunities by young people in rural Somerset. • To encourage community regeneration through good citizenship and participation. • To provide access to information and advice on issues relevant to the lives and aspirations of young people. • To generate and participate in partnerships involving young people and key local stakeholders • To involve young people in the organisation’s development and delivery SRYP uses a project-based approach where projects vary in size from small local initiatives to countywide services. Each project has clearly identified aims and objectives to target delivery, routes of accountability for stakeholders and a fundraising strategy. The main characteristics of the delivery are: • A flexible and responsive approach to the needs of young people, where they have a central role in the development and delivery of the programmes. • A willingness to experiment and be creative in areas of new and innovative practice. • A wide range of methods for engaging with young people including detached work, mobile provision, working with individuals, advice and information, rural youth club support and activity programmes SRYP is keen that this development should provide opportunities for the rural young people of Somerset and enhance existing community provision. SRYP would support the inclusion of a range of Apprenticeship opportunities for employment and a coherent workforce development strategy that provides sustainable economic development for young people. SRYP would also be supportive of community engagement and consultation processes that encourage the voice of young people to be heard."

Mike Timmins
"I strongly object to the proposals on land near the village of Combwich. The proposal to raise ground level by a metre and carry out extensive wharf works is grotesque, given that on the one hand land not prone to flooding should be available on existing brownfield sites, and on the other that a perfectly suitable wharf is proposed for Hinkley Point itself. Traffic movements for this process are excessive, unsustainable and wasteful, and will require excessive and peace-destroying noise, vibration and light pollution. That this proposal so close to a quiet residential village should be even considered beggars belief. Its closeness to currently-approved major environmental river works on the Parrett, with unknown consequences for deeper flooding and for internationally-significant bird migration patterns, means that any environmental impact analysis and risk assessments that may have been made are null and void. Such analyses, even new ones, will remain in this unknown state until the Steart Peninsula plans have been tested and experienced over a period of years. For the local population the proposals have no merit. We are being asked for permission to blight our lives for absolutely nothing in exchange. Older residents will loose their right to a 'quiet enjoyment of their home', and a whole generation of village primary school children will know only noise, atmospheric and traffic pollution, rather than a healthy country upbringing. Keep Combwich rural!"

Ian Macnab
"Surely if we are dealing with an area with the second biggest tide in the world, The risk of a Tsunami is a strong possibility one day? Would we not be wiser to invest in harvesting the power of the sea? This is Sustainable,Renewable,Natural and allways there. There must be enough evidence by now that Nuclea is not sustainable and far from safe? I think given the time and money,and more importantly the cost to the environment.We should be consentrating on conserving energy,and working on more natural forms of power."

Dario Gerchi
"I strongly disagree with this application on the grounds that it will pose an unacceptable risk of radioactive contamination for a very wide area, including where I live. In the light of what has happened (and is still happening) in Fukoshima, Japan in my opinion it would be highly irresponsible to allow this application to go ahead. It would also represent a great waste of resources which would be better used to further the development of safe sustainable energy generation."

Alex Putnam
"My main objection regarding the new build at Hinkley Point is in regards to the transport plan put forward to manage the large influx of cars and vehicles, for the construction phase. Although, EDF has proposed a network of park and ride stations as well as a by-pass around the village of Cannington, I still don't think this is enough to stop serious congestions from occurring on the A39 and the roads of Bridgwater town. There has been much debate about a possible new by-pass the most popular one to date is a dedicated rd for Hinkley point traffic linking Hinkley to the Dunball Rd. When the last public consultation for Hinkley C was carried out by   , in the report he specifically stated that improvements to road infrastructure were needed and that “the routes to be used by commercial vehicles between the M5 and Hinkley Point ‘C’ construction site, and between the A39 and the construction site, during both site preparation and construction, shall be:“The Bridgwater (North), the Cannington (West) and the Cannington (South) bypasses when those bypasses are available for use" The report was written in 1988 and since then many things have changed in the locale, including: the the doubling of car ownership, the increase of 8,000 more people living in the local area and the estimation of another 10,000 more people moving into the area over the next 5 years as well as the planned new housing of over 2,500 hundred homes. The the influx of vehicles ( particularly big lorries) used for the construction of the phase of the power station . These are just a few of the many points that I feel clearly justifies the need for a proper by-pass NORTH of Bridgwater town as stated by   in his original report. It will allow for a more efficient and safer build as well as benefit the local communities who live within close vicinity of the power station."

Chris Briton
"I disagree with the application for the following reasons:- 1. Significant increase in HGV lorries in rural area impacting upon the environment and local peoples access to work and leisure. 2. Impact upon wildlife and marine life in the local area. 3. Social tension and division caused by influx of non-local people with subsequent increase in anti social behaviour and possible increase in crime figures. 4. Impact upon tourism in the area. Holiday parks, campsites, B&B and hotels all affected. 5. Sole reliance by the County Council upon Hinkley as an economic driver and job creator."

Mr S Ostler
"The development will industrialise a natural, rural area of peace and tranquility. The scale and length of the development are inappropriate for the location. The disruption will be severe for a long period. The nature and characteristics of the area will be damaged permanently. The location, transport links, and proximity to local communities mean that this is simply the wrong place. A large contractor workforce on site for several years is an unacceptable intrusion."

D J Western
"I have worked in the energy industry for the past 38 years and believe the Hinkley C proposal is a very significant one for the UK's future. I am conscious that a significant number of people not local to Hinkley Point may well express views opposed to the development and would wish to ensure that a balanced view is received by IPC. This means that people like myself need to express that view and take an interest in the planning process. I understand that large scale energy developments do have consequences for people wjo live close to them. However, I believe that the local consequences of the proposed nuclear development at Hinkley are justified in view of (a) the efforts to minimise and mitigate them and (b) the substantial benefits the development offers both to the the UK and the local region (through jobs etc.)."

Thomas Hughes
"I fully support all aspects of this application and believe that whilst disruption to the local area is inevitable during such a large-scale construction project, EDF Energy's plans to mitigate this disruption through the construction of park & ride sites, logistics centres and accommodation campuses are adequate. The construction of new power infrastructure is essential for the UK to remain an economically stable and profitable nation and the benefits of this development will be seen to continue way beyond our lifetime. The benefits to the local area are also considerable with the development providing much-needed employment, tourism and educational opportunities."

Mr Roger John Stacey
"I refer to Section 6.3 of the Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary, and in particular sub-sections 6.3.1 - 6.3.9. The statement acknowledges that there will be a significant increase in traffic from Junctions 23 and 24 of the M5 to the HPC site. It also refers to the existing high traffic flows. At the beginning and end of the day, those routes leading into Bridgwater already suffer considerable tailbacks on every day of the week and these are heightened in the Summer months by holiday traffic. The traffic is often at a standstill. I believe the increase in traffic due to HPC will be far more detrimental to local traffic flows in the area than the applicants care to acknowledge. It will result in lengthy delays, which will be unacceptable to local people and cause delays and inefficient working on site. I therefore believe that it is essential that the Transport plan is totally revised, with a new bridge built to cross the River Parrett at Dunball, close to Junction 23, and a new road constructed from there to Cannington. It is also unthinkable that Cannington High Street should have to endure HGV and all other traffic associated with HPC until the Cannington bypass is constructed - a period of two years. The bypass MUST be completed BEFORE any significant work is commenced at HPC, or a new road built from Junction 23, which may obviate the need for a Cannington bypass."

Adrian Arbib
"i object on the strongest grounds to this application for the following reasons: 1. Nuclear is hugely expensive and the huge hidden costs of decomissioning reactors have not been factored into the KWp/hr cost being bandied about by the DECC . It is being sold as affordable electricity. It is not and the government has flasified the figures. The UK taxpayer is being duped. It is obscene that we are subsidising this technology. 2. The risk to human health is huge. Low level radiation is a true and real threat. Evidence from cancer cluster cases from 3 Mile Island Chenobyl and potentially Fukushima is irrefutable 3. There is no such thing as 'safe nucear'. 4. The massive subsidies being pumped into nuclear should be diverted into Renewable energy and not removed (from renewables). I cite for example the current feed in tariff reduction on solar PV which was dramtically cut (without consutlation) stalling the industry and the huge roll out of low carbon, micro generated and community energy. 5. Nuclear is innefficient 6. Nuclear energy proliferates nuclear weapons. 7. Flood risk at Hinkley. The area has already recorded a tidal wave that inundated the land at this location. Who is to say it won't happen again ? And who is to say it won't be a higher wave ( see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/aug/10/science.spain) ?"

Chris Quick
"I agree with the application in respect of nuclear power being an essential component of the UK energy mix, and to fill the energy gap. I also support nuclear power as a low carbon electricity generation technology. I support this application to build 2 new nuclear power stations at the Hinkley Point C site as it will help secure UK energy supply, reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, and therefore provide a more sustainable energy future for the UK."

Terence Murphy
"I agree that nuclear power is the most afordable and reliable form of low carbon generation available to the UK. I agree that the HPC project will bring substantial econonic and employment benefits to the local communicities and the nation in general. In addition, it will bring national and international business benefits and supply chain opportunities to many companies and contractors. I thnk that the disadvantages of any local disruptions during the construction phase will be vastly outweighed by the advantages of increased employment opportunites, increase local economic investment, increase supply chain opportunites and the long term economic and environmental benefits provided by the HPC project."

Taunton Deane Borough Council
"This General Statement of representation is prepared and lodged on behalf of Taunton Deane Borough Council in connection with application EN010001 made by NNB Generation Company Limited TDBC support a new nuclear reactor and the economic and social benefits it will bring to the Borough. However, this support is conditional: the development should not impact negatively on the economy, transport and accommodation provision of the Borough. As a Statutory Party we have yet to be confident that the following issues have been adequately examined and addressed: • Significant Highways impact: with reference to Taunton’s Growth Strategy, M5 Junctions 25 and 26, the A358, the A38 between Taunton and Bridgwater as well as the highway network between Taunton and Hinkley across the Quantock Hills. Confidence needs to be provided for the delivery of the Transport Strategy taking into account worker related traffic and risk analysis that includes changes in construction phases, freight distribution and failure in public transport provision. A more detailed study of the impact is required along with mitigation proposals. • Significant Accommodation impact: the displacement of the traditional market for private sector housing allowing for affordability; the shortage of rented sector accommodation effecting the Local Authority’s ability to discharge its Homelessness Obligations and Supported Youth Housing particularly in light of rising youth unemployment; the Government’s changes in the Benefit Legislation and the generous EDF accommodation allowances. Market forces will see Hinkley workers attracted to accommodation in Taunton because of its facilities, services and quality of life. We are not convinced of the robustness of figures provided for non-home based employees living in Taunton Deane, the impact construction work will have nor the assumption that there is existing capacity to meet this demand. In addition there is neither reference to the standards of accommodation nor redress in case of inadequate standards, other than referring the matter to the relevant authority. A more detailed study of impact and mitigation proposals to ensure a positive housing legacy is required. • Significant Skills and Employment impact given the high proportion of the workforce likely to live in the Taunton area combined with the lack of investment in the skills provision and support for recruitment within the Borough. Application documents refer to local contractors, local sourcing and local skills but there is no legal commitment to or investment for this. More detailed information is required for us to be confident of a positive skills and employment legacy. While TDBC support a new reactor at Hinkley, we are not confident that significant issues have been adequately examined and addressed. We wish to attend the preliminary meeting for the examination, and to submit written representation at a later stage in the application process reserving the option to appear if an issue specific hearing is held relating to an issue raised by our representations."

Colin Fitzpatrick
"I have worked in the nuclear power generation industry for over 40 years and am in favour of the construction of Hinkley Point C Power Station. I have some reservations on the proposed EPR design and even more over the competence of Electricite de France but I have full confidence in the British Nuclear Regulatory Authorities in ensuring the safety of construction and operation. I am however opposed to the application submitted by Electricite de France for the construction of Hinkley C for the following reasons: The submitted plans do not contain proposals for the required traffic infrastruture to alleviate the traffic problems that will be created both in Bridgwater and Cannington. Electricite de France have totally ignored the Barnes Report of the public enquiry held on the plans to build Hinkley C in the 1980's which clearly stated that no work should be started on the station until the correct road infrastruture was in place. Electricite de France are proposing a minor bypass of Cannington and have dismissed the request from residents and local councils for a Northern Bridgwater bypass. They, having obtained permission to start 'construction of the station' by the back door from West Somerset District Council, intend to carry out the biggest construction project in Europe by routing traffic through Cannington for at least the next four years! This one fact shows how ludicrous their application is in the subject of traffic infrastructure. In Cannington we are already seeing an increase in HGV traffic through the village although no major work has yet begun, traffic violations are being reported on an almost daily basis. Over the next few months the volume of HGV movements is expected to increase to many hundreds a day. Recent accidents have shown that the A39 is not adequate for the current traffic volumes without factoring in the additional Hinkley construction traffic and provides no emergency route in case of an incident at the Hinkley site."

Kathryn Ford
"I am very concerned that aspects of the development of Hinkley C will seriously impact on the village of Combwich, completely destroying the quality of life as a quiet, sociable, rural community. Why build a freight laydown facility on the flood plain when there are other sites available including at the main construction site. The 10.1 hectare site will need to be raised by almost a meter and require 933,000 tons of material (including building the wharf) to build. It is estimated that this will require 60,000 road vehicle movements before the Cannington by-pass is built. Why does EDF need a road haulage facility at Combwich which will add vehicle movements and be immensely costly to build and disruptive to the local community? There is an increased risk of flooding if the existing wharf is lowered. Whilst the wharf at Combwich is likely to be needed, a goods wharf can not be necessary when a similar facility is going to be built at the main site. The wharf is in the centre of the village and will create serious noise and light pollution during to construction and use for residents. The loss of tranquillity and the impact of noise, vibration, lighting and access issues concerning the wharf and footpaths on leisure activities. The need to minimise the impact on residents by using all possible engineering solutions and restricting working hours and the provision of sound insulation to individual properties. Compensation for those in properties most directly affected and also for the village as a legacy for 10 years of disruption and inconvenience. The amount of traffic that will use the C182 (Hinkley Road) and the impact on junctions to Combwich and Otterhampton. The difficulty of getting through Cannington before the by-pass is built and the impact on Bridgwater without a northern by-pass. Over 1000 vehicles a day will pass the end of the village each way to and from Hinkley Piont according to EDF’s figures."

Exmoor National Park Authority
"There are concerns with the likely levels of traffic from the west and that the details and Transport Strategy do not provide reassurance that the impacts of that traffic on the local environment can be mitigated successfully. There is a need to demonstrate that lighting at the Williton Park and Ride site and the Hinkley Point C site itself are the minimum necessary for the safe operation of the sites and that the lighting is designed to prevent spillage from those sites in the interests of ensuring that dark skies of the Exmoor National Park, one of its special qualities, is not affected. The strategy to try to accommodate the very large number of temporary workers is not comprehensive or detailed and does not adequately address the likely adverse impacts on the wider area, including Exmoor. As the strategy does not address the large amount of accommodation required it is likely that workers will rent accommodation in the National Park, much of which would normally be available as short–term lets for holiday makers who would otherwise have been able to visit and spend their money in the National Park. The lack of adequate and sufficient worker accommodation therefore will have a direct impact on the tourist economy of the National Park and research demonstrates that much of the National Park tourist trade occurs from return visitors. If this holiday letting accommodation is not available because it has been taken by Hinkley Point workers there will be long term adverse impacts on the economy for years to come. If worker housing can be provided to a high standard then this could be made available for much needed affordable housing in due course, leaving a valuable community legacy from the development."

Philip Highe
"Introduction - My representation is in two parts, regarding the benefits this development will bring Nationally and Locally. In summary, I am wholly supportive of the proposed development. National Benefits - Without new electricity generation capacity, the UK is going to have considerable difficulty in keeping the lights on from about 2020 onward. Whilst new nuclear is not the only solution to the problem it has a part to play as a portion of a balanced portfolio to replace the existing baseload generation capacity that will be lost as the existing nuclear and coal stations pass the end of their lives. - As the economy becomes increasingly low carbon toward 2050, the UK will need the capability to replace carbon intensive transportation, space heating and electricity generation with low carbon alternatives - indeed this may well mean a very large increase in generation capacity is required. In a low carbon world, wind, tidal & wave power will all have a part to play in the portfolio, but have utilisation factor issues and very high cost (even in comparison to nuclear) which mean that they cannot be the whole answer. CCS is an interesting concept, but has no track record, no production scale implementation and very uncertain cost forecasts - it has even lower cost certainty than new nuclear. - Finally, investment in new nuclear within the UK is not a high risk activity, as evidenced by the investment example set by by many other countries: United States, China, Middle East, France, etc. Local Benefits - The area local to Sizewell has been familiar with nuclear generation on their doorstep for generations; first Magnox, then AGRs and now EPRs. The local residents are aware of the benefits brought to their area: well paid employment opportunities at semi-skilled, skilled, clerical and professional levels; existing employees of the power companies coming to settle in the area; increased demand for local services; improved technical educational opportunities; and, the presige of having a high level of investment in their area. - The build phase will bring difficulties to the local area, through increased heavy traffic, a temporary workforce, noise, dust and other environmental distubances. No-one should be blind to the realities of having a very large construction site in the area. However, it appears that EDF and their contractors are doing all possible to mitigate these issues, through road building, traffic controls, working hours, and so on. - The benefits mentioned above from having the station sited in the area will begin during the the build phase, indeed, they have already begun (in a small way). In addition, the offsetting investment in the area detailed in S106 provides additional local benefits in compensation. - Provided that EDF and their contractors continue to work closely with the local residents and council, any problems that arise can be quickly resolved and the locals' build experience be a positive one."

South Somerset District Council
"As an 'interested party', 'South Somerset District Council' reserve the right to provide a more detailed written representation later in the examination process."

Dean Parfrey
"I am in support of the application. The proposal will bring in much needed infrastructure, educational and job opportunities into the area. There are few major employers in down here and as such this proposal will develop long term job opportunities for the local community to keep locals in the area. The existing stations provide significant support to the local communities and charities (both financially and resource wise) which can only be improved by the continuation of this proposal. The country needs to maintain and develop security of energy supply and provide a good energy mix. A new nuclear station in this area will ensure that the South West is instrumental in providing a mjor contribution to that mix and security. Siting a new station adjacent existing will minimise the overall impact as the existing stations are now part of the scenery (and have been for some time). There are many items in teh proposal that will limit the visual impact. In my view the proposals for minimising traffic and road haulage, and the impacts therein have been addressed and the views of the local communities respected."

Robert Blandford
"1. A Northern Bypass for Bridgwater will exclude traffic from an already existing bottle neck from M5 Exit 22 via Wildes Road to the South of Bridgwater. 2. A Northern Bypass will also serve as a more rapid evacuation escape route should the need ever arise in future."

NuclearConsult
"RESPONSE TO EDF IPC APPLICATION: NUCLEARCONSULT Nuclearconsult comprise leading over 50 leading UK academics and experts in fields related to environmental risk. We note our strong objection to the fact that the IPC rules don't allow objectors to raise any issues to do with nuclear power (as laid down in the government's NPS). In this context, we are limited to the following topics: • Effects of construction traffic • Effects on landscape and the local environment • Lack of economic benefit • Effect on local services • Lack of adequate emergency planning Given the very short 500 word count for the response - we consider that the most important issue is lack of adequate emergency planning. The Fukushima disaster led to the evacuation of an area of 20 kilometres (12 miles) and up to 32 kilometres (19.2 miles) to cover some outlying towns that the Japanese authorities were particularly concerned about. The French and US nuclear regulators suggested the evacuation zone should have been even larger – as much as 50 miles. This is considerably higher than current evacuation zones for UK civil nuclear reactors and is likely to take in Councils that do not have fixed nuclear sites in their area. • We consider that the evacuation zone plans are insufficient, and should be increased to the Fukushima evacuation zone size (or larger) than the present smaller zones in current plans It is highly possible that the host local authority / LRF for all UK civil nuclear reactors and military nuclear sites could be overwhelmed with the emergency response to a Fukushima type disaster. Mutual aid with neighbouring authorities across the region is essential. • We consider that the Community Risk Registers are insufficient and Emergency Planning Units / LRFs in outlying areas require additional training of key personnel. Large amount of equipment and open space that would be required in establishing decontamination facilities for cleaning the civilian population in the event of radiation exposure from a nuclear accident or a malicious CBRN attack. Other countries, like Sweden, have been considering the development of a public information campaign to educate the public on what to do in the event of a radiation exposure in terms of removing clothing and thoroughly cleaning the body. • We consider that the current public information programme is insufficient and more effective information should be made available on large-scale emergency decontamination operations. The Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) 2011 Interim Report notes, “although there is potential for flooding to occur in the near vicinity of nuclear sites, the actual flooding risk is unknown because the detailed specific likelihood and consequences of flooding have not been assessed by the regulators”. • Hinkley Point site is on a coastal location. Following the Fukushima incident, we consider that local / LRF flood plans are inadequate, and as a result, key elements of the local emergency plans are inadequate."

Mrs Barbara Haxby
"I am very concerned about the inevitable increase in traffic through the village of Cannington and consequent safety issues, noise and dust. I am also concerned about the effect on the shops and Post Office of restricting the parking in that part of the road. I am concerned about the impact of the proposed Park and Ride Facility in Cannington which is close to my home, both during the construction and operation phases - noise, dust and light intrusion."

Geoff Fairman
"Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area (one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset, Devon and South Wales, including my friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for it's eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

Andy Buchanan
"I fully support the Hinkley Point C planning application. The UK must secure its energy souces for the future - and this involves nuclear power."

Paula Hollings
"With the recent horrors in Japan very firmly in mind, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset, Devon and South Wales from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. EDF, as the proposers of this development, have a duty of care towards the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. The FULL responsibility for such a project, with all the detailed ramifications for individual, national and global safety and security must be born in entirety by the developers. Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforeseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area (one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for its eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforeseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

Ms Joanna Haxby
"I am concerned about the volume and speed of traffic on the Cannington to Hinkley Point road, the C182 especially the impact on the junction to Otterhampton which already needs great care when exiting to to C182 and is particularly dangerous at shift change-over times when the traffic from Hinley is more intense. This will much worse with the anticipated construction traffic and the EDF's predicted movements of over 2000 vehicle movements a day. I am concerned about the loss of tranquility to Steart Point where I live which is in direct line of sight to the site where the new generating stations will be constructed. Noise, and light intrusion are of particular concern. I am concerned about the possibility of accidents when transporting loads up the River Parret and any damage to the banks which are an essential part of flood protection to my property."

Janet Hearn
"Nobody knows for sure how long it takes for nuclear wast to decontaminate. Money would be better spent investing in renewable energy especially wave power Fukushima was a wakeup call recognised by Germany, Italy, Austria and switzerland. A tsunami could happen again here as in 1607. Nuclear power is unsafe and is a terrible legacy to leave to our children and grandchildren. Building nuclear powerstations for local jobs is shortsighted and greedy. We need to think of our planet for future generations"

British Association for Shooting & Conservation
"The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) is the UK’s largest shooting association with a membership in excess of 130,000. It aims to promote and protect sporting shooting and the well being of the countryside throughout the UK and overseas. BASC’s expertise in shooting matters is widely recognised and it is routinely consulted by a variety of government departments and agencies (including the Home Office, Defra, Natural England, Environment Agency, The Crown Estate, and Health & Safety Executive) and other statutory and non-statutory bodies. BASC is aware of the DCO Application for the Hinkley Point C (HPC) Development and wishes to register a number of concerns ahead of the registration deadline 1. The restrictions on, and changes to, access points/ routes which will impact shooters (wildfowlers) accessing their legitimate coastal shooting ground on the Excepted Area. As referenced in section 6.17 of the Environmental Statement Non-technical Summary 2. The potential impacts of the construction phase on the natural environment and its implications for wildfowl, including disturbance of feeding and roosting areas, interference with flight paths, and the impact on the food chain supporting these wildfowl. 3. The potential long-term impacts on wildfowl, their food chain and their environment during the operational lifetime of the plant and subsequent decommissioning. 4. The minimal references made in the Environmental Statement to the implications of the HPC development on both wildfowl and wildfowlers; and the subsequent assessment that the implications are of low significance. 5. The adequacy of the mitigation measures proposed to address items 1 - 3 above. Shooting is permitted on 3 areas that will be impacted by the HPC development – 2 are managed by Bridgewater Bay Wildfowlers Association and Highbridge Huntspill & Burnham Wildfowlers Association , while the third is the Excepted Area. The latter is unique to the region and very rare at a national level being an area of foreshore accessible to legitimate shooters regardless of whether they are members of a club/ association or not; as such it is of significant importance. The 2 associations have in the region of 140 – 150 members between them who actively use these amenities; there are additional users who shoot on the Excepted Area but the numbers are more difficult to quantify. We anticipate that the construction phase in particular would introduce a level of human activity into the area that would far surpass anything that estuarine birds using the immediate area have experienced to date. BASC believe that the most serious ecological risk is in terms of the potential for disturbance to birds and the disruption of their feeding. Most wildfowl actively avoid areas of human activity if they can and the substantial effects of the jetty traffic, shipping in the River Parrett, and the construction site itself over a prolonged period of time can be expected to adversely affect local and migrant populations. In Summary, while BASC recognises the strategic infrastructure importance of HPC it is equally clear that the needs and rights of the coastal environment and legitimate users must be taken into account. BASC believes that the application requires fuller consideration of the impact on the long standing and culturally important activity of shooting, and on the sensitive habitats affected by the HPC development."

Geoff Taylor
"Having reviewed the above application submitted we wish to object on the following points. We live in   at Stockland Bristol and our property is within a few miles of the proposed development and downstream of the prevailing winds. Objections: 1. Environmental Issue / Noise: Firstly during construction we will have to suffer the endless noise from the Heavy Plant operating plus the endless ‘Beep Beep’ from their audible reversing sirens which they cannot legally switch off. We can regularly hear sirens and announcements form Hinkley Site and now we have to suffer 5 years plus of this. As a shift worker who sleeps during the day the thought of trying to sleep through this noise is of enormous concern. This is currently a very peaceful environment in which to live which is we have done so since 1984, with the introduction of the proposal to this area it will be transformed forever. We understand the need for the creation of new Power Stations, but the due consideration must be given to minimise the impact. 2. Traffic Generation / Road Safety: With up to 5,500 construction workers commuting from various camps this will create a huge impact on the local traffic and surrounding area, the impact will be incredible. With the introduction of this additional influx of traffic in addition to the 40,000+ proposed visitors to the EA & BPTC development nearby at Steart it’s unacceptable. 3. Impact on Village: The development will be bringing general disruption to our lives. What assurances can EDF give us on the security to our village and homes? There will be opportunist, a minority element within all the additional people migrating to the area, but this needs to be proactively acted upon rather than reacting after the event. Summary: We see the development as a necessity to support the ever increasing demands for power plus the impending demise of Hinkley B; however this rural hamlet should not be ignored as on the periphery, develop the site by all means but give us proper due consideration!"

Christopher Dent
"Grounds for Objection to new Nuclear Power Station at Hinkley Point Chris Dent MRTPI 20th January 2012 I am an Architect and Town Planning Consultant living and working in Exeter. When I studied Town Planning I specialised in Environmental Impact Assessment . I am familiar with the site as 25 years ago I worked at West Somerset District Council and modernised their housing at Stogursey the nearest settlement to Hinkley Point. 25 years ago seems a long time. However when dealing with Nuclear Power 25 years is a very short time scale. I understand that waste on site will be kept for 160 years and that long term provision has not been adequately arranged. I do not consider that we live in a world which is stable and secure enough for the nuclear industry. When I lived and worked in West Somerset 25 years ago we could not have envisaged the terrorism threat which resulted in the events of 9/11. The problem with nuclear issues is that although the likelyhood of incident is very low the effects of any incidents can be very serious, long term and widespread geographically. I am aware that previous problems at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima have been examined and considered not likely or possible to happen at Hinkley but I do not consider that as a society we are wise enough to know about what other problems may occur over the next 200 years. I am aware of the National Policy Statement on Nuclear Power (19th July 2011) and of it’s materiality with respect to this application. I also would point out my professional body (RTPI) is response to the draft stated: “….However, the RTPI is concerned that the decisions made would not necessarily be the most sustainable because strategic issues, such as the comparative evaluation of different options, would not have been taken into account early enough in the development process (we do not believe that the assessment of options under EIA would be sufficient in scope to properly achieve this).” The safety concerns outlined above are mirrored in local concerns and site specific features (such as this site being at the end of a cul-de-sac) and therefore I consider that my concern is relevant at this stage. My first objection is therefore with respect to safety concerns. As a Planner I believe in thinking ahead and considering the “whole life costs” of any project. This project does not appear to be adequately planned for long term storage and decommissioning nor is the safe transport of nuclear materials to or from the site entirely costed. I do not consider that a private company would have the resources to either deal with the unknown consequences of unforeseen incidents or the known consequences of decommissioning. As far as I’m aware the nuclear industry cannot be insured in the way that other industries are. My second objection is therefore to lack of “whole life costing” and possibilities that public funds will in the future be required for aspects of this scheme. Within these two “in principle” objections there is a huge amount of detail which I believe others will be concentrating on. This detail on specific local impacts such as deficiencies in emergency planning, lack of economic benefit and effects on nearby designated wildlife sites can be provided at a later stage."

Mr David Stafford
"A. EDF are acting immoraly to even consider any more building works before building a bypass avoiding Cannington and all the small vilages in the area. B. EDF are behaving like the goliath of a company they are stamping on the people who wish to carry on living a peacefull village life without the threat of hundreds of HGV lorries passing through the village every week. C. I believe that a road from the M5 directly to Hinkley Point is the best answer starting at junction 23 therefor avoiding Bridgwater, Cannington and Combwich. D. EDF are in danger of destroying all aspects of village life how will that effect thier future long term with the resentment that thier actions cause. E. Build a bypass EDF there are serious safety issues with the increase in traffic in this area."

Cheryl Brown
"I have lived in this area since 1967 and in Cannington since 1977. I have brought up my children and now enjoy grandchildren. Until our bypass was built we had to endure all traffic coming through our village causing lots of problems, ie access to our own drives, parking, safety on pavements and crossing the road. I am most upset at the plans to use the existing road A39 for the transport of all or most materials for the construction of Hinkley C. My reasons for my concerns are as follows: 1. These problems will happen all over again. This road becomes blocked at every accident and hold-up that occurs along its stretch from Bridwater to Cannington with no traffic being able to access other routes as these also become grid-locked. 2. In the event of an incident at Hinkley Point requiring evacuation, where precisely are we supposed to go? Numerous other villages join onto the Hinkley Road and the A39 so how are we all going to use these roads as an escape route? 3. How will I be able to access emergency help if the road is continuously used by the transportation of goods? 4. How will I be able to attend medical appointments if I can't get out of the village due to heavy traffic? 5. If the Japanese can repair a motorway in 7 days, why are we expected to have eight years+ of this? We need a direct link from Dunball to Hinkley by way of a dedicated electric railway (rather than a road) which would be a more realistic, safer and cleaner solution to the environmentalists warnings of increased carbon emmissions. (Hinkley could provide the electricity for this) An extension of our bypass would spoil whole acres of countryside that surround our lovely village. Our earth is precious, how can you allow EDF to buy the sky and the warmth of the land around us? We need to protect what we have instead of allowing it to be plundered."

Mr Mike Jarvis
"A. A Northen bypass to the West of Canmington is the best answer and BEFORE anymore works are carried out. B. I am not against the building of Hinkley C and understand the work it will bring to the area but not at the expese of village life and the safety of the people of all the local villages. C. EDF has made a string of promises all broken. D. Safety is a big issue with the increase of vehicles passing through the village putting people and animals welfare at risk. E. Hinkley C traffic will be heavier than at the height of the holliday season all year round for 8 years or more, why do EDF think that we had a bypass build around Cannington for our holiday traffic are they that stupid."

Ben-Jah Jon
"I do not agree with the building of the new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point, West Somerset. I am concerned that the planning does not have adequate safety provisions in place for both the local people and those further afield. I am concerned that the planning does not have adequate provisions for tidal waves (which have occurred in the past, 1607) or earthquakes and the detrimental effect this would have on the Plant. I am concerned that the architectural plans are too old and by the time the Plant had been built will be outdated and therefore more dangerous. I am concerned that this may bring terrorist activity into the local area and have a negative impact in general."

Highways Agency
"The Highways Agency (HA) welcomes EDF's intention to reduce the traffic impacts of construction through: • Developing strategies to minimise the number of workers travelling in single occupancy vehicles; and • Minimising the number of HGVs travelling via the Strategic Road Network (SRN) by using a temporary jetty and Combwich Wharf. The HA also welcome further opportunities to clarify the impacts of the proposals. This will be achieved through ongoing liaison with EDF on technical elements of the proposal. Through these ongoing discussions the HA is aiming to be in a position of fully understanding the extent to which the proposals will impact on the SRN and its junctions and to be satisfied that appropriate mitigation measures can and will be implemented. In order to meet the HA’s statutory responsibilities, our key objectives when reviewing this submission are to ensure that free-flow conditions and safety on the M5 motorway will be maintained along with the efficient operation of those junctions which interface with the SRN so as to ensure they are not adversely affected. At present, there are areas of the submission that the HA cannot agree. The impact of these issues leads to concerns about the on-going operation of the M5. The key issues are: 1. Trip Generation and Distribution • Trip generation has not been agreed, with the result that the impact of development on the SRN is not yet clear; • Maximum trip generation has not been calculated and EDF has not sought to cap the number of trips by hour; • It is unclear as to what the impact of the ‘Friday Night’ scenario, when non-home based workers travel away from their temporary base at weekends might have on the operation of the SRN as it has not been included in the assessment; • The M5 has significant seasonal increases in traffic during the summer months. It is unclear to what extent the proposals will impact on the M5 during this period as no seasonal assessment has been made; • There appears to be an overprovision of Park and Ride parking spaces, which do not correlate to the anticipated trip generation, the impact of which has not been assessed in terms of the impact they will have on the SRN; In addition, an arbitrary 10% uplift has been applied to trip generation of the Park and Ride sites (2016 and 2021). With out a clear understanding of why a 10% uplift has been applied, the Agency cannot be certain whether the proposed mitigation is appropriate. Best Practice would normally derive the size and operation of the Park & Ride sites based upon agreed trip generations and assessment made on this basis. • With development of this scale it is important to understand the trip assignment up / down stream of junction 24 and junction 23 to demonstrate the extent of impact on the SRN. 2. Freight • The number of HGVs travelling to the Freight Management Centres in any one hour is largely uncontrolled; the HA is seeking to clarify how these movements, in both peak and non-peak hours will be managed such that it has certainty over the pattern of vehicle movements and the resultant impact on the SRN; • The HA has significant concerns regarding HGV movements during 2013 (the ‘Early Years’) due to the routing of HGVs via the Freight Consolidation Centre at Junction 24 and back onto the SRN and through Junction 23. Our primary concern is that this might lead to inefficient operation of the junction resulting in increased queues on the M5 Junction 23 northbound off-slip; • The origin of the HGVs downstream / upstream of the two M5 junctions is unclear. More detail needs to be provided regarding the origins of the Freight so as to understand the impact on the SRN and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation; • Light Goods Vehicle movements are uncontrolled but could result in a maximum 510 movements a day. The application needs to set out what impact, if any, these might have on the operation of the SRN. 3. Modelling • The modelling undertaken does not allow the HA to fully evaluate and understand the impacts the development will have on the operation of the M5 and its associated junctions. As such we are undertaking some assessment of our own and will continue to work in co-operation with EDF in order to seek a resolution. 4. Travel Plan • The HA is not able to agree the suitability of the proposals contained within the Travel Plan (TP) until other inputs such as trip generation and impact are agreed. The TP will therefore need to be refined to ensure confidence that agreed impact can subsequently be addressed. 5. Environmental Statement • Due to the Environmental Statement’s (ES) reliance on output from the Transport Assessment (TA), the HA reserves judgement on this document until such time that the TA is agreed. 6. Control and Enforcement • The level of detail supplied regarding control and enforcement is insufficient for the HA to reach agreement. Therefore, critical to the HPC submission is agreement on the Demand Management Strategy (incorporating the Automatic Number Plate Recognition monitoring scheme which includes J23 and J24) and the Traffic Incident Management Plan. These documents have not been provided. 7. Mitigation • The issues highlighted above mean that the HA cannot be confident that the mitigation measures proposed are adequate to ensure the efficient and safe operation of Junctions 23 and 24 and the M5 itself. Furthermore, the HA needs to understand the impact of the development on the wider SRN to establish whether additional mitigation is required. • There have been no Safety Audits provided of highway mitigation schemes to demonstrate that they are achievable from a highway safety perspective. 8. Concluding Comments The HA does not have sufficient evidence to fully understand the impact of these proposals on the SRN, nor whether the proposed mitigation package will allow the safe and efficient operation of the M5 and its junctions."

Gerber Juice Company Limited
"As a representative of a large local employer I would like to register our organisation as an 'Interested Party' of the Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station application. (IPC Reference: EN010001). We are particularly concerned about the potential skills shortage issues that may arise as a result of this application, particularly with regard to mechanical and electrical engineering."

Malcolm Reid
"I own and have lived in for 18 years, a domestic property within a few hundred yards of the proposed site. I will be subject to any of the possible health and environmental hazards that will potentially arise during the construction period. My wife and I are both pensioners and had moved to our home 18 years ago to retire as we thought the area idyllic and peaceful with access to all the rural pursuits that we both enjoy. The traumatic upheaval that this huge construction will inevitably cause and the uncertainty about any mitigation schemes being offered will seriously disrupt our lives. My house has been for sale for over a year but any potential sale has been blighted by the uncertainties surrounding this application as little regard has been shown for the quality of life of the site near-neighbours and all the applicants consultations to date have been inconclusive and appear to have been a box-ticking exercise."

Greenpeace UK
"Greenpeace UK is the autonomous regional office of Greenpeace, an international campaigning organisation whose main objective is the protection of the natural environment. Greenpeace has worked on the issue of nuclear power since its inception. It has gathered expertise and access to expertise on all issues to do with nuclear power – including safety, health, security, economics, transport, waste and proliferation. Greenpeace objects to the proposals to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point and wishes to register as an interested party for the upcoming examination. Greenpeace believes that there are a number of serious flaws with these proposals which should lead the IPC to recommend against granting a Development Consent Order. Greenpeace believes that the proposals are unsafe as they have not taken sufficient account of the lessons of Fukushima. International best practice is constantly developing as countries seek to protect their reactors from the kind of extreme shocks that triggered the disaster at Fukushima. The French nuclear watchdog, for instance, has just concluded that French reactors should have remote bunkered back-up control rooms. The American nuclear watchdog has yet to make its detailed improvement orders. In the UK, the government commissioned Dr Weightman to examine the UK’s nuclear power stations and regulatory regime in light of the disaster. His inquiry was limited to natural events and gave no consideration to events which are more relevant within a UK context, such as terrorism. His report also pre-empted the findings of the Japanese government’s own study, which has yet to be translated into English. Dr Weightman did not, for the most part, propose solutions, but instead identified problems for the industry and the regulators to solve. Many of these are still outstanding. It is clearly germane to this inquiry for the applicants to show how they have taken account of Dr Weightman’s findings and emerging international best practice when developing their plans for emergency response, flood defences, off-site electricity supplies and other site and project specific elements which serve to protect the reactor – and therefore, the public – from extreme external events. However, this application was submitted to the IPC just twenty days after Dr Weightman published his report. His recommendations – and those of similar inquiries which together inform international best practice – could not possibly have been incorporated. We are particularly concerned that the proposals do not provide adequate protection from flooding. In 2007, Greenpeace commissioned analysis by Middlesex University’s Flood Hazard Research Centre, which looked forecast flooding scenarios at Hinkley Point and concluded that “the site [to the west of the existing reactors] is not a feasible option” because of concerns over erosion, storm surge and a general rise in sea levels. We also have serious reservations about the efficacy of the emergency response plans, on-site emergency controls and off-site electricity supplies. Greenpeace intends to submit substantive evidence on flooding, emergency response planning, off-site electricity supplies and other site and project specific issues at the written evidence stage. It is probable that new developments will emerge during the examination phase. Greenpeace reserves the right to make further written submissions in response. Finally, we note that the government’s planning reforms are intensely controversial. There is widespread concern that the objective is to marginalise local opposition. These concerns become more pressing where the infrastructure being considered is potentially hazardous or where the application is so large or technical that it would be unreasonable to expect the public to understand it without expert assistance. The situation is made even more complicated in applications like this, where it is unclear what falls under the IPC’s remit and what is the responsibility of the Office of Nuclear Regulation or another regulatory body. If the IPC is to engender public trust, then it must demonstrate an unprecedented level of pro-active communication. It is not sufficient to put over three hundred documents online and assume that the public has found the relevant sections – instead, the IPC needs to identify the key and controversial points and make sure than an accessible discussion can take place. This may involve the IPC engaging its own experts to provide independent advice to interested parties and the public at large. Where it is unclear whether a particular topic falls within the IPC’s remit, there should be a presumption in favour of allowing discussion. To do otherwise risks the recurrence of the widespread protests against the planning system that took place in the 1970s and 1980s."

Alison Stenning
"Lessons should have been learnt from the Tsunami in Japan. I live not far from Hinkley point as the crow flies."

Mike Stone
"I object in the strongest possible terms that large numbers of heavy lorries will be using our village prior to the construction of a bypass for Cannington. I personally would use any legal means at my disposal top prevent or disrupt this traffic."

Stephen Mewes
"I find every aspect of this application and the supposed resurgence in the Nuclear Industry abhorant. The toxic of legacy of Nuclear Power is shameful, our descendents will look back on this generation with disgust in what we have done and what we have left them to clean up."

Enmore Parish Council
"Enmore Parish Council has serious concerns regarding the facility being provided at North Petherton and believes that increased congestion at J24 will result to more drivers using the Enmore Road as a route between Bridgwater and Taunton."

The Bristol Port Company
"The Bristol Port Company recognises the need for the UK to promote a sustainable and secure arrangement for its power supply. The development of Hinkley Point, and other nuclear power stations, will provide a safe, low-carbon and secure base-load capacity that we fully support as a part of the UK's energy mix. The Bristol Port Company is supportive of EDF Energy’s Hinkley Point C application. The construction and operation of the facility will make a major contribution to the local economy, with considerable economic benefits for related businesses across the South West region as a whole. Over the past year, The Bristol Port Company and EDF Energy have worked together to identify and assess possible synergies and cumulative impacts between the Hinkley Point C project and our nearby Habitat Creation Scheme on the Steart Peninsula. We look forward to continuing this working relationship in the future to promote co-operation and integration in the implementation of mitigation and monitoring programmes, where relevant, to the mutual benefit of both projects, and importantly to maximise benefits for local communities and the environment. We welcome the opportunity to work closely with EDF Energy and their contractors in the development and delivery of a sustainable and efficient transport and supply chain for the construction of Hinkley Point C."

Cheryl Parkhouse on behalf of Mr David Atkinson
"The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) wishes to register its interest in respect of the application for development consent. NDA is the freehold owner of Hinkley Point A (HPA) which directly adjoins the application land. NDA is a Non-Departmental Public Body created under the Energy Act 2004. Under this Act, a statutory responsibility is placed upon NDA to decommission and clean-up the UK's civil nuclear legacy in a safe and cost-effective manner, and where possible to accelerate programmes of work that reduce hazard. As one of its sites designated to NDA under the Act, the continued decommissioning of HPA in a safe, secure and cost effective manner is central to meeting NDA's core objectives and statutory responsibilities. With respect to the proposed development, NDA is currently in discussions with NNB Generation Company Limited (NNB) and EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Limited (NGL, together with NDA "the Parties") to protect NDA's interests. Discussions are ongoing and NDA will endeavour to keep the IPC informed of any developments and agreements reached between the Parties. NDA has every confidence that agreement can be reached on these issues and current discussions are continuing well in this respect. Aspects of the development which could potentially impede NDA's statutory decommissioning obligations include: (a) access to HPA both during construction of the development and following the start of operation. The current access road used by NDA to access HPA will fall within the curtilage of the proposed development and NDA notes that a number of changes to the current route are envisaged both in relation to road layout and ownership. For obvious reasons NDA needs to continue to have access to HPA; (b) access to the boundary fences of HPA that lie between HPA and the proposed development; (c) access to the beach and/or foreshore adjoining the Bristol Channel; (d) other aspects of the development which may impede the safety and site licence obligations of HPA which in turn may affect the decommissioning programme. Access to the areas identified above will need to be preserved and considered further. Whilst NDA brings these matters of interest to the attention of the IPC, it however emphasises the importance of cooperation between the Parties in respect of issues common to each site. Discussions are therefore currently being undertaken in light of this recognition and examples of such effective cooperation can already be found on existing neighbouring NGL and NDA sites which preserve the primacy of nuclear safety and site licence obligations to both sites. In summary, NDA has no objection in principle to the application provided its legitimate interests are protected and its ability to complete the decommissioning of HPA is not impeded. NDA is willing to assist the IPC further with respect to the above-mentioned issues, including discussing any relevant wider future strategy that NDA has as part of its statutory remit."

Berrow Parish Council
"Berrow Parish Council is deeply concerned with the impact this application could have on: - tourism. Berrow is a coastal resort and relies heavily on tourism. My Council feels that the proposed development could deter people from coming to Berrow and the surrounding areas. - accommodation. My Council is concerned that there could be a huge overflow of workers from Hinkley living in caravan parks and other holiday accommodation. This could have an impact on local services, schools, traffic etc. My Council is not convinced that there is sufficient accommodation for the amount of people who will be working at Hinkley. - coastal flooding. My Council is concerned that the temporary construction of the jetty could exasperate the existing problems with coastal flooding and the erosion of the sand dunes. - traffic. With so many workers at Hinkley, the number of cars on local roads would greatly increase and my Council is concerned that the current infrastructure would not be able to cope with this. My Council is also extremely concerned that the proposed discharge of cooling water and liquid effluent into the Severn Estuary during the operation of the proposed station would mean that there could be a possibility of effluent being washed up onto its beaches."

Mary Ryall
"1. the preferred route should be from Dunball to Combwich and not througth Cannington 2. whichever by-pass route is selected, it should be built before construction starts on the main project."

Guy Whittaker
"I do not believe, and it should be proven to be otherwise before undertaking the building of a new nuclear power station, that there is not a safer, more effective, more efficient, less harmful, more economical means of providing energy to the people of the United Kingdom and those other international energy networks to which the National Grid is attached."

Stephen Gale
"I am concerned that the positive impact of this project will not benefit the locality in the way it has the potential to do. I am keen to hear that my neighbourhood will not be adversely affested by noice, traffic or light polution. I would like to see a lasting legacy for the region beyond the clear benefits the power station itself will bring leading to a sustainable re-development of Bridgwater itself."

Cheryl Parkhouse on behalf of Mr Andrew Slaney
"Magnox Limited (Magnox) wishes to register its interest in respect of the application for development consent. Magnox currently holds the nuclear site licence for Hinkley Point A (HPA). As the licensed operator, Magnox is responsible for the safe and secure operation of the site. It is required to comply with a large number of legal obligations and restrictions placed upon it through its site licence and conditions, nuclear safety and security regulations and environmental regulatory obligations. Any inability to comply with such obligations would have far-reaching consequences. In addition to its own regulatory obligations as the licensed operator, Magnox also manages HPA on behalf of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), the freehold owner of the site. As noted in NDA's representation, NDA was created under the Energy Act 2004 with a statutory responsibility to decommission and clean-up the UK's civil nuclear legacy in a safe and cost-effective manner. As one of its sites designated to NDA under the legislation, the continued decommissioning of HPA in a safe, secure and cost effective manner is central to meeting NDA's statutory responsibilities. In order to fulfil this statutory duty, as site operator, Magnox holds contractual obligations to NDA to undertake decommissioning on behalf of NDA. Alongside NDA, Magnox is currently involved in discussions with NNB Generation Company Limited (NNB) and EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Limited (NGL, together "the Parties") regarding protection of its interests. Current discussions are continuing and Magnox, with NDA, has every confidence that agreement can be reached on these issues. Aspects of the development which could potentially impede Magnox's obligations, both regulatory and contractual, include: (a) access to HPA both during construction of the development and following the start of operation. The current access road used by Magnox to access HPA will fall within the curtilage of the proposed development and Magnox notes that a number of changes to the current route are envisaged both in relation to road layout and ownership. For obvious reasons Magnox needs to continue to have uninterrupted access to HPA; (b) access to the boundary fences of HPA that lie between HPA and the proposed development; (c) access to the beach and/or foreshore adjoining the Bristol Channel; (d) other aspects of the development which may impede the safety and site licence obligations of HPA which in turn affect the decommissioning programme. Access to the areas identified above will need to be preserved and considered further. Whilst Magnox brings these matters of interest to the attention of the IPC, it emphasises the importance of cooperation between the Parties in respect of issues common to each site. Examples of such effective cooperation can already be found on existing neighbouring NGL and NDA/Magnox sites which preserve the primacy of nuclear safety and site licence obligations to both sites. In summary, Magnox has no objection in principle to the development provided its legitimate interests are protected and its ability to fulfil its site licence obligations and complete the decommissioning of HPA are not impeded in any way."

Tim Mander
"My principal concern revolves around the local road infrastructure which I do not believe even with some tweaking is capable of taking additional traffic. My view is that is essential that a Dunball to Cannington bypass is constructed. Why 25 years ago when an application for Hinkley C was first submitted was a bypass an absolute requirement yet all these years later with a much larger station proposed and more traffic on the roads EDF are trying to avoid their responsibilities?"

Craig Davenport
"Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area (one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset , Devon and South Wales , including my friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for it's eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

Lynda Stahl
"The increased traffic during construction, and possibly afterwards, would be very difficult to cope with in this area. Likewise the increase in noise, particularly near the site and in Combwich. The laydown facility is too big and in an unsuitable place. Why cannot storage be provided on site? No amount of mitigation could adequately compensate the majority of residents, whose quality of life will be damaged. Strain on local schools, health care, emergency services etc."

Jon Lloyd
"My concerns are for the current road network system, including the plans to provide a by-pass around, and freight handling facilities in Cannington. The villiage has constant traffic issues throughout the summer months re significant increase in road traffic (tourist) and the increase in traffic accidents. Any accident on the A39 from Bridwater to the West, causing road closure, completely paralises the surrounding roads, as there is no relief road capable of taking HDV/long loads/wide loads etc. Ideally, a rail link to the Hinkley site to support both the new build (HPC), and the existing HPA and HPB sites, would take all traffic off the local road network. Such a rail link could transport passengers at shift start/finish times, and materials at all other times. this option would also restrict the likelihood of massive expansion of building along any existing or new road routes, in a largely green belt area. This suggestion has previously been submitted to EDF, without response. Alternatively, a new road from Dunball, directly to the site, by-passing all villiages should be built to service the new and existing Hinkley Point facilities."

Jill Perry
"Renewables are cheaper than nuclear power, they provide greater security in energy supplies than nuclear power, they are substantially more effective in cutting emissions of CO2, there are more than enough to meet our needs now and for the foreseeable future, they provide diversity in energy supplies, and they are safer. There is no danger of a Fukushima, Charnobyl, Three Mile Island or Windscale type disaster caused by renewables. Furthermore there is a serious problem regarding the disposal of nuclear waste from nuclear power stations which has not yet been resolved and poses a serious threat to my part of the world. I wanted to answer yes to Q2 because the land I own in Cumbria is under threat from nuclear waste disposal. The unacceptable local effects of a new nuclear power station include the effects of construction traffic, the detriment to landscape and the local environment and services and the lack of economic benefit, including adverse effects on other industries such as food production and tourism. I also believe there could be a wider detriment in the whole of the South West due to the lack of adequate emergency planning"

Jenny Chesher
"I am highly concerned at the impact of traffic generated by the development during the construction period, both in Bridgwater and on roads between Bridgwater and Hinkley Point. At present Bridgwater suffers from severe congestion during peak traffic periods and I am not convinced that, with the number of both construction workers and materials needing to access the site by road, anything other than a new northern by-pass could mitigate their impact on local highways. Furthermore, the A39 to the W. of Bridgwater is a known accident blackspot and is not infrequently completely blocked by such accidents. On such occasions, villages to either side of the road can suffer from extremely high traffic loads, severely impacting on the local residents and their enjoyment of what should be quiet countryside. With traffic levels set to rise in any case over the next 10 years, I cannot see how the existing road infrastructure would cope with the additional load of Hinkley Point traffic, even with some junction improvement, and the northern relief road - which was apparently a condition of the previous Hinkley C power station consent - seems the only sensible way of alleviating that potential impact on local residents."

David Cross
"Failure of applicant, to date, to offer adequate compensation to property owners living in the vicinity of the applicant's proposed works due to loss of value of property, loss of amenity and deterioration of the local environment."

David Orr
"I live in   and whilst I support the jobs & economic development, I am concerned about infrastructure improvements, such as a new link road from the M5 by Dunball to bypass Bridgwater. I do walk and bird watch in the area (around Steart)."

Martin Shukie
"The proposed site in Hinkley is not a sustainable initiative for electricity production and does not hold the best interest of the local resident in mind. Regarding sustainability the proposal of nuclear material used for electricity production may give some short term advantages re cost and kw produced, however the cost of safe storage of waste products produced from this will far exceed these in the long run. Not to mention the enviromental cost. There is also a greater risk of radiation levels increasing in the area not only initialy but let us not forget that this area has been affected in the past by seveare weather and the tsunami of 1607,www.safecoast.org/editor/databank/.../somerset-tsunami-of-1607.pdf . We have seem what happened in Japan why must we risk repeating here."

Andrew Balloch
"I appreciate that there is a need for increased power output in this country, as demands increase due to the ever expanding population and decommisioning of old power lants. The decision to build a plant in Somerset is in my opinion a mixed blessing, any increase in jobs can only be a good thing for the locals. However I wish to raise the following points about issues which may affect me and others from the area. 1. Employment: I am worried that a great many of the jobs will go to persons from out of the area, and rather than training and developing local jobseekers and young people. A great influx of migrant workers would create resentment among the local population. 2. Housing: I worry that the housing proposals / accommodation for the works is unsustainable and will not be a future asset to the county of Somerset, more a liability and eyesore. I also worry about what the massive influx of (probably better paid than I) workers will do to my rental costs. Obviously I cannot afford to buy, and many people are in the same position as me, so landlords are already able to charge what they want (far too much in my opinion) for shoddy accommodation. The influx of migrant workers will increase demand for such accommodation, decrease supply and hence increase prices. I KNOW that my pay will not increase by the same amount. 3. Transport: This is the area in which I have the greatest concern. The M5 / A38 transport routes already seem very busy. There has already been massive development in Bridgwater / Taunton and very little expansion to the existing road network. All the extra traffic that will undoubtedly be created by the commuters to the new site and also materials delivery will make the currently oversaturated road network worse. In particular, the A38 Taunton Road into Bridgwater already suffers queues that reach past the south of North Petherton towards Taunton. This situation cannot be allowed to become any worse. I would ideally like to see a Southern Bridgwater bypass from the M5 J24 Roundabout up to the roundabout where the A39 leaves South West end of Bridgwater, as well as the proposed Northern Bridgwater Bypass. I would like to see localised widening along the A39 to allow safe overtaking places. I also have concerns about the extra wear the heavy goods vehicles will cause on our already potholed and under maintained roads. I also think that there will be increased likelihood and severity of accidents along the route to the site due to impatient drivers stuck behind heavy goods vehicles. This should be addressed. 4. Emergency Evacuation Risks: We are already very vulnerable in this area if something were to go wrong at the plant. If the new reactor is built, and the extra staff working there, how would we be able to evacuate to a safe distance when the road network around Taunton & Bridgwater is virtually at a standstill around peak times anyway? 5. Local Resources: Are local resources – Health / Leisure / Entertainment / Police / Other emergency services going to be able to cope with the extra demand placed on them by workers? – I suspect that any sums that will be granted to such areas will not be sufficient for services that are already under funded. The package awarded to the authority needs to be substancial."

Shane Collins
"1. Doubts about the proposed reactor type, - unproven design, large cost over runs in the same design being built in Europe. 2. Centralised or decentralised energy supply. I prefer a decentralised energy supply as exemplified by domestic solar and wind energy generation. This leads to decentralised economics and therefore decentralised politics as well as a more stable electricity supply. Conversely centralised power generation leads to centralised economics and centralised politics. It is also more unstable as if a nuclear station goes off line it is not easy to replace that power generation. FIT encourages self sufficiency in power supply, thus being far cheaper for the consumer, nuclear makes us dependent and once long term waste storage costs are factored in very expensive. 3. Waste Solutions. How do we cost the storage of radioactive wastes for anything up to 150,000 years ?"

Barry & Vale Friends of the Earth
"The plans for storage and eventual disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility are absolutely inadequate, by UK and international criteria. The waste from high burn-up fuel is radioactively much hotter and longer lived than existing spent nuclear fuel, and EdF has not shown that the materials problems for its containment can be resolved. During storage on site, the spent fuel will not be in fail-safe condition but need active cooling and management, with continuing regulatory supervision. Over the 160 years timescale, the possibility of institutional breakdown has to be considered (as CoRWM’s report considered). The HSE has said one cannot predict such breakdown. In default of any UK government decision, the IPC has to follow eg. US EPA in not assuming regulatory control persists for more than 100 years. The radioactive hazard from neglect or sabotage of the spent fuel store is large, but EdF has not assessed it realistically. The population at risk includes people in South Wales, with Barry and the Vale of Glamorgan the closest. Clearly a credible accident scenario comes from disruption of the cooling systems, when the fuel could burn/evaporate and form a wind-driven plume of minute particles. The health hazards of inhaling such radio-hot particles have to be considered. There is no guarantee of a long-term store/disposal route for the radioactive waste. Though the government has declared it believes a deep ‘geological’ store will be built, this belief is not sufficient to over-rule the requirement for evidence-based decision-making and it does not satisfy the Flowers criterion. The uncertainty of the ‘geological’ disposal route means the Hinkley store may have to last much longer than the 160 yrs. Over a 200-500yr period for the waste store, sea-level rise is expected to be significant and far above the 100-yr rise that the government considered for its site selection process. So the vulnerability of Hinkley Point over the longer period has to be considered. It is contrary to sustainable development that we leave nuclear contamination problems to future generations. The sums required by government for EdF to set aside for management and disposal of the nuclear waste cannot ensure future generations have the social and physical resources they would need to continue this safe containment. For one thing, such moneys tend to disappear into government coffers; for the second, such moneys lose their value in the event of economic breakdown."

Hugh Gilmour
"I support the application for the construction of the Hinkley Point C development. The national need for a secure power source is obvious and requires a swift and clear decision to ensure the UK maintains its economic standing. From reading the planning documentation and visiting the local area the location of the proposed station itself seems well considered being near an existing station and in an area where nuclear power is clearly understood by the local population who stand to benefit greatly for the huge proposed investment in the area in both the short and long term. From reading the documentation and talking with construction industry professionals, the provision of the associated development aspects of the projects is clearly in line with managing the potential impacts that a project of this scale will have on the local community and infrastructure, and appears to have taken a lot of lessons from other large scale projects in the UK such as the Olympics. The level of engagement shown with the local community should be commended having spent time in the area near Hinkley Point it is clear that everybody is aware of the proposals which is impressive due to the rural nature of the area where it can be difficult to reach communities."

A Frances Morris
"I agree with the application. Nuclear power is a cost effective environmentally friendly method of producing power. It is clean and efficient with no environmental impact on the surrounding area (look at the number of SSSIs sited around the UK's nuclear establishments including Hinkley). Wind and wave power affect the environment and do not produce sufficient base load electricity. New nuclear build is the best way forward for the UK and will not cause a detriment to Somerset."

Geoffrey Stuart Dowding
"General question in respect of final design features of site."

Peter Grenville Smith
"I object to the proposed works on the basis of: EFFECT ON ROADS •Construction traffic,heavy vehicle movement will have a negative impact through villages. •Likewise heavy increased traffic through Sedgemoor and through Bridgwater town. •Only one road and no bypass planned for Bridgwater. •Vibration damage to housing •Negative impact on quality of life of those affected by above •Local Consultation in actual area around Hinkley Point, has not been sufficient? •Compulsory Purchase Orders of land is not democratic •Emergency vehicles in local areas are likely to be affected by heavy contruction traffic congestion •The major construction site traffic is likely to cause significant access delays to the Hinkley site, as this will be one of the largest construction sites in UK . • Congestion is likely to have a negatice impact on tourism, farming and other local business for many years. From Cannington there is only one two lane road for site access •Very large number of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) per day through Bridgwater, will have a negative impact on the town . EVACUATION PLANS •Evacuation plans in the event of any catastrophe doesn't appear to be in the EDF application. •If there is an emergency on site, the single access road could be problematic •The B station Emergency Evacuation plan does not have procedure for the safe evacuation of workers while C is being built . FLOODING ISSUE •There is a 100 year risk in this area and waste storage will be kept on site for at least 160 years. In 1981 the 'A' station was forced to shutdown for many weeks when the sea defences were breached and CW Pumphouse flooded. Following improved sea defences ('after the horse bolted') new gabian wall breached again with flooding around CW Pumpouse very nearly forced site shutdown and risk to nuclear related cooling pumps. DELAY WITH EDF NUCLEAR BUILDS •EDF have 3 EPR build projects with design and construction problems resulting in time and cost over-runs at Flamanville (France), Olkiluoto (Finland) and Taishan (China) WASTE – SPENT FUEL •Details of Storage area ponds not yet fully designed •The Water Cooled Reactor design requires longer term High level Waste Storage facility on site, which is not the case with existing Gas Cooled Design and local population have not been fully informed of this significant increased environmental risk from radioactive isotopes in normal operation and in an emergency •There have been several significant leaks of radioactive pondwater from existing fuel ponds on the Hinkley site causing ground contamination which is still present after 25 years. There is no reason to see why EDF and the EPWR will fare any better WASTE Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) •Safe Removal and Storage of ILW from existing shutdown nuclear Magnox sites has been a disaster. Millions of pounds of tax payers money has been wasted on facilities that don't work and ILW is still stored in ageing facilities on Magnox sites for up to 20 years after commercial operation ceased in facilities not designed for long term storage. The competance of the Nuclear Industry to safely mange waste must be questionable and there is no reason to believe it's performance will improve in the future, putting tax payers money and public health at risk. DEMOCRACY •The lessons of Fukushima have not been learned •The planning process is undemocratic and there has been a Lack of Consultation •The IPC process has not allowed a proper national debate and public enquiry •We haven't had a choice •EDF is the most complained about energy company •NNB Genco Ltd are not experienced at building nuclear power stations •EDF have been giving ‘sweeteners' to local schools and businesses, have stifled and tried to control the anti-nuclear point of view, prote themselves as 'Green' when they are not and blatantly trying to sway local opinion with full page 'job sweeteners' in the local press RISK ELEMENT •EDF have 2 pressurized reactors running late with design faults and have not yet successfully completed this type of project. •Fukushima clearly demonstrates the High and Harmful impact of nuclear power •Despite recommendation by Nuclear Regulator, Mike Weightman, in Fukushima report that Nuclear Industry should be open and honest, the Government has colluded with Nuclear Industry to carry out damage limitation tactics to suppress any negative impact of Fukushima on New Nuclear Programme STATUS OF LAND •The Hinkley Point includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) •The Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) target to have 95% of the SSSI area in favourable or recovering condition by 2010 •Removal of Woodlands and Hedges affecting habitat for a variety of protected species. •The legislation is there to ensure conservation of that area. HEALTH •The Impact of chronic low level radiation exposure on health and the local ecology is being ignored. •Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in the estuary, e.g Bridgwater Bay mudflats. The monitoring and reporting of radioactive discharges are unacceptable as public only given annual average figures, short term peak discharges not reported •Increased health issues at Burnham-on-Sea, Weston Super Mare, Watchet, Minehead and beyond from planned and unplanned radioactive discharges. JOBS PROMISE •Inadequate assessment of the number and impacts of large numbers of foreign workers. •A risk of unemployment going up as more people flock to the area for work than there are jobs available, as happened at Flamanville."

John C Jory
"I am against the building of Hinkley Point C because: The construction of Hinkley Point C will lead to a massive increase in heavy vehicle traffic through the village. This will: Increase Noise Increase Pollution Endanger the population including children, the elderly and students of Cannington College. Much of the materials being transported through Cannington may be carcinogenic (e.g. dust of various types) Lead to a large increase in wear and tear on village roads."

Julie Jones
"I disagree with the level of mitigations which have been stated by EDF. The level of disruption that the works will bring to the following areas have been grossly overlooked. Junction 23 - this area will take every traffic movement too and from the EDF site and associated park and ride.With local knowlege you will understand that the traffic lights proposed is inadequate. It does not help the villagers of Puriton at all with entering and existing the village safely. Dunball - The hamlett of Dunball has not been adaquately considered in road safety and access,or any other mitigations. The uniqueness of the 20 houses concerned will mean they will be cut off and surrounded by traffic. IPC should be mindful that 20 people cannot give the same level of response as a village could, but it should not be overlooked due to lack of numbers. It would also need a site visit to assess the uniqueness which involves a dual carrageway and an ending of a public footpath.The ending of the footpath means you have to cross the dual carriageway in an already dangerous situation to reach the bus stop and to walk to Bridgwater. The current school busses have to loop around to collect Children who go to to Bridgwater as it is judged by county hall school transport to be too dangerous for the Children to cross.But this is not the situation for the public who have no choice but cross the dual carrageway . When EDF add there traffic in a 50 Mph zone I dread to think how many will either give up using the bus altogether or who may get killed.So this will be a loss of use of service due to EDF traffic. The proposed bike and pedestrian crossing siting at Downend park and ride for EDF will not help these residents and has not been situated to help the local community. A proposal was submitted by local residents and through the Puriton Parish council called the Puriton community Link project.It was a pedestrian and bike solution for both the residents and workers use and a lasting legacy to assist in long term safety measure for people who should be encouraged to use bike, wheelchair, foot as a means of transport other than car. This proposal has not been considered and would have helped the wider area. Several of the parishes that have to move through junc 23 agreed this would aid movement for people in and out of Bridgwater and help the hamlett of Dunball from destruction and entrapment.And give a means to get to and from Puriton to Dunball , Downend and to Bridgwater. The mitigations other villagers have been allocated again have not been given to the Hamlett of Dunball and they are right next the the main road. I cannot highllight enough that everything that goes to Hinkley point will need to go from Junc 23 and past Dunball.The residents should be offered double glazing. The dual carrageway at Dunball cannot cope with the level of traffic that it currently has and add EDF and the whole town will become deadlocked . SOLUTION- 1-Bypass 2-Puriton community link project. OUTCOME TO SOLUTION A town that will not be gridlocked and hamlett that will be able to function and a puriton community link project that will help the bigger picture of being able to have people equally considered along side ecconomic progression."

Philip Ham
"I disagree with the traffic study, modelling and statement that traffic in and around Bridgwater can be managed with limited piecemeal improvements to local junctions and roundabouts. I've studied the overwhelming Traffic Assessment and proposed road improvements and cannot see how the minimal changes can cope with any increase in traffic from the Hinkley Point C construction and operational use, now or in the distant future. I have to drive through Bridgwater twice a day to get to and from work, so I see and experience first hand the congestion along Wylds Road and Western Way (NDR and Homberg Way). The previous river crossing to Chilton School area was ill conceived and runs at capacity every day at peak traffic times; the original speed limit was 40mph, but this was soon reduced to 30mph which restricted traffic passing through what should have been a bypass. Since then more housing has reduced this to a housing estate road. With Butlins increasing its capacity, the EA's Managed Realignment Scheme near Stockland Bristol, Gerbers site development, Morrisons RDC, development at North East Bridgwater, Bristol Port Authorities tidal creek scheme at Stolford, Cokerhurst Farm development and the new Haygrove and Chilton schools the existing roads cannot cope as they are. The catpcha at the bottom of this form is to small to be clearly read."

Jeremy Damrel
"Nuclear power is an essential part of a balanced mix of power generation technologies. If we are to have power beyond 2020 then nuclear is essential, given progress on other technologies. Hinkley is a logical location given the presence of existing nuclear reactors. There is a real opportunity for the area to benefit from the economic uplift the project will bring and to take steps to ensure a continued strong economy once construiction is complete."

Sarah Porter
"I am writing to express concerns about the transport and accommodation proposals. I have concerns that local people are not being considered in the plans and that local people will have their lives irrevocably changed, and not in a positive way."

J W Shore
"Since 1968 I have been working with sustainable buildings and energy, and in the 1970's I built and monitored the UK's first successful self-sufficient house as a research project at Brighton Polytechnic. I see no benefit to our country from building nuclear power stations, and I have not seen evidence that Hinkley Point C is economically viable on a cradle to grave life cycle analysis which includes long term fuel supplies, environmental safety and decommisioning. This means that the project will be an unnecessary waste of human and physical resources. I would ask what measures will be in place to ensure safety in the event of computer failure due to an unforseen and unpreventable situation, or that all operating staff became ill due to some unforseen event or disaster or perhaps a medical situation (bird-flu or similar) ? We should not be building Hinkley C. We should be using these millions of pounds to externally insulate our buildings and place Photovoltaic arrays on their roofs."

Stringston Parish Meeting
"The Parish Stringston have grave concerns regarding the planned route for the traffic coming from the Williton Park & Ride site. We feel it is going to be extremely detrimental to the local residents and have a negative impact on our lives. We also have concerns regarding accommodation plans and the impact on local tourism, and the negative aspects of the transport proposals in general, affecting our routes to work and lives in general."

Piers Ranger
"As a local resident of Stringston, I disagree with the planned route for the Willton Park & Ride traffic to reach the Hinkley C site. I disagree with a vast majority of the transport proposals, which are unsatisfactory and have not included a Northern Bypass. The local residents of Shurton and Stogursey will have huge disruption from the site and proposed campus."

Carol Porter
"I disagree with the transport proposals, in particular the lack of thought given to the Clayland Corner junction meeting the C182. The junction is already very dangerous and with the increased traffic along the C182 it will become almost impossible to safely join the road with so many vehicles travelling along it. The proposed route for the transport travelling from the Williton Park & Ride is also disagreeable. It follows a very narrow road which those with local knowledge, will know will cause no end of crashes, with the limited passing places and s bends/tight corners."

Angie Zelter
"My democratic rights are being ignored and my right to life and health impaired. There has been a lack of real consultation with false choices being given and no real debate about alternative less damaging and community owned sustainable energy sources that could be up and running within 5 years and reduce our carbon footprint – ie. Wind, solar and wave energy. The money going into promoting and building nuclear is undermining attempts to become self-sufficient in energy with the least impact on health, environment and security. EDF is one of the most inefficient and corrupt companies and there have been numerous complaints about it due to over-runs on dates and costs and with numerous design faults. EDF have 3 EPR projects at Flamanville (France), Olkiluoto (Finland) and Taishan (China) and they have all suffered huge cost and time over-runs and not been going well. The experience for local people there has not been good either as it treats its workers very poorly and tends to use cheap labour whenever possible. NNBC Genco Ltd have not experienced at building nuclear plants. Unlike wind, wave and solar – which if they go wrong do not end up with the public subject to a major health hazard and long lived environmental pollution – we cannot afford to have inexperienced companies involved. The construction vehicles entering Hinkley Point if the power plant is built will cause unacceptable noise and vibration to locals and spoilt their rural quiet. Local organic farms will be affected by the inevitable radiation leaks that have occurred at every single nuclear power plant ever built. Ramblers, tourists and farmers will be affected. It has been estimated that around 700 Heavy Goods Vehicles will pass through Bridgwater every day. The carbon costs and overall energy used in building this nuclear power station will never be recovered as over its lifetime (including waste, storage and decommissioning) it will use much more than it ever produces in its lifetime. There are no evacuation plans in the event of any catastrophe nor are there are provisions for proper compensation to locals and others who may suffer in the case of accidents occurring or if it is hit by an aeroplane or subject to terrorist attacks. There are issues surrounding the risks of flooding which are likely to become more common and severe as Climate Chaos grows due to the global inability to tackle climate change and reduce the use of fossil fuels. There has not been sufficient thought and design plans put into storing the waste and no permission to build a power station dealing in radioactive materials should be allowed to go ahead without detailed plans on how to deal with the waste problem for the thousands of years of needed for the plutonium and other waste products created by the process. We need answers on the processes and levels of compensation due to locals when accidents and contamination occur and we need an independent body to constantly monitor for leaks and problems. Hinkley Point includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest and has habitats that should be protected. Conservation will not be enhanced by the building of such a power station – unlike a wave or tidal system in the channel."

Nigel Gardner
"i cannot believe that this proposal is actually being debated at all. the knock on effects of EDF's submission for this build are hugely far reaching.nearby bridgwater will become grid locked, our roads and services will simply not be able to cope with such an influx of traffic. most people also know that it wont be a local job for local people- only an estimated 30% of local people will be employed- an admission by EDF itself. lorries & other construction vehicles will be coming through our village & surrounding areas every 4 seconds! quite how our health, education & policing services will cope, i dont know. myself & my family love this area & fear it will never be the same again"

Deborah Derebag
"I have lived in the   area for over 45 years. I have 6 children and 3 of them are still attending the local schools. I am very alarmed to hear that the pylons may not be following the path of the existing ones. It is not acceptable to put these new pylons any closer than they already are. they are going to be much bigger anyway,"

Alan Hyde
"I fully support the proposals for Hinkley Point C, which will deliver a much needed source of low carbon energy to replace lost energy capacity across the country as other power stations close. The proposals have been carefully developed with due regard for the local community and the environment, following widespread consultation. During tough trading times and in an area of below average educational achievement and above average unemployment, especially in Bridgwater, these proposals will provide jobs for local people, new skills and training opportunities for young people, contracts for local firms and uninterrupted career opportunities for local people already employed in the nuclear industry in the area. Hinkley Point C is a win-win for the nation and the local community. The opportunity must not be lost."

Valerie Boxal
"I agree with the basic submission to build a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point as I do understand that it is necessary for the energy requirements of the country. In addition, I believe it will bring many advantages to the local area. However, I have the following concerns regarding the construction phases of the project: o The effect of noise and pollution during the building of the power station on the health and wellbeing of the local residents. Particularly if there are to be periods of 24 hour working. o The effect of substantial increased levels of transport on the local area, especially as many of the local roads are narrow lanes which will not support large, heavy lorries. In the submission there does not appear to be sufficient notice taken of the potential for huge problems both for local residents and, indeed, the workers and contractors at Hinkley Point. o The effect on the local landscape, wild life and village life of an influx of large numbers of workers over the course of many years. I am worried that many aspects of our quiet and rural ways will be lost."

Zelda Jeffers
"I do not believe that nuclear power is a safe way to generate energy. I do not believe that the power station will be safe, I believe that there is a serious and extremely dangerous possibility of an accident which could have fatal and far reaching effects on large areas of this and other countries and the sea. I also believe that in the running of the power station there is likely to be nuclear out put which will have a deliterious effect on the surrounding area. I believe that for the nuclear waste that will be produced will be no suitable way to store it nor get rid of it thus burdening future generations with a heavy and harmful legacy. I believe these things because of what has happened here and in other countries in the past and is still happening."

Wendy Bowen
"I live in   and have grave concerns that the road infrastructure of the local area is totally inadequate to cope with the increased traffic, a large proportion of which will be heavy goods vehicles, resulting from the proposed construction of a new Hinkley Point power station. I believe that the impact of the increased traffic on local residents, businesses and tourism would seriously damage the quality of life of many people in the area and also could potentially cause loss of life should an evacuation of the power station and the local area be necessary owing to a catastrophic event such as an accident, terrorism or environmental disaster. As one who has lived in this area for 33 years, I am well aware of the frequent gridlock which ensues when there is any blockage on the A39 from Bridgwater to Cannington due to an accident (with existing traffic levels) and have had many experiences of this over the years. Add to this the massive increase of HGVs, buses, other vehicles and the daily movement of around 5,000 workers, during the construction phase, and the serious threat to residents and their families is obvious. No work should be authorised on this construction project unless either a northern dedicated route from Dunball (M5 junction 23) or a Bridgwater and Cannington bypass is built. These solutions have very widespread support from local people and would protect Bridgwater, Cannington and other communities from intolerable misery for the next 10 years and beyond. However, EDF persist in ignoring these suggestions. EDF have continually expressed the view that the above road is unnecessary and that their proposed minor alterations to some road junctions will mitigate against problems, yet they have not provided evidence for this in order to satisfy the calls from local people, District and County Councils. This is because EDF are not concerned with the way the project will affect local people, they just want to complete the construction in the least possible time, at the least possible cost, despite their protestations of full consultation with the community. All EDF propose is a western Cannington bypass to avoid extra vehicles travelling through the centre of the village. Such a bypass (if ever built) will have no impact on the gridlock on the Bridgwater A38 from the M5 junction 24, or on the northern distributor road on the outskirts of Bridgwater (built for the new housing on its edges) before traffic joins the already overloaded A39. I am very much afraid that any decision to allow the construction to go ahead without a new road will result in countless lives being blighted; the economy of the area being irreparably damaged; and in the worst case scenario, lives being sacrificed should a serious incident occur. I implore your Committee to consider the opinions of those who have direct experience of living in this area, rather than believing the views of a profit-motivated company which will, if allowed, ride roughshod over us all."

Owain Jones
"I feel the IPC should make it easier for people to register. A lot of people have told me that the registration is over complicated and as a result they haven't bothered completing the form. Also it's unfair that people who are unaware of this registration will not be able to participate in a decision which will effect them and their families."

Brin Bowen
"I live in the Sedgemoor district and my overarching concern is with the capability of the existing road infrastructure to cope with the enormous amount of construction traffic, both materials and personnel, over an extensive and very uncertain period of time. Somerset County Council have already stated that Bridgwater will be gridlocked by 2015 without this development so how can anyone seriously consider allowing what is probably the biggest civil project this country has ever seen, using the existing roads? There are regular delays on both routes (A38 & A39) from the two M5 junctions into Bridgwater and on the A39 out west to Cannington and beyond. The A39 in particular has a poor accident record and the whole area seizes up when this happens, precluding emergency vehicles reaching a fire, or anyone seriously ill, or reaching Hinkley Point in the event of a major incident there. EDF initially proposed a western bypass for Cannington and a large Park & Ride facility (along with other unsuitable facilities which were later dropped). Apart from the damage both of these developments would cause to green belt and other agricultural land, near to significant housing, they would both encourage extra traffic on already dangerous and oversubscribed routes through Bridgwater and Cannington. Now, ludicrously, it appears that the unwanted bypass would not be built until after one of the peaks in construction traffic. EDF have made it difficult to gauge the total traffic by submitting a raft of different applications, under different names, to a variety of authorities. Despite repeated requests by the Councils, they have singularly failed to provide comprehensive and accurate information on traffic. At every release of information the numbers have increased and I have no doubt that these are still underestimates. Their proposals for ‘road improvements’ are not credible and simply move problems from one point to another. The damage that would be done to local businesses, tourism and people’s personal lives, for at least 10 years, by the amount of traffic required, is totally unacceptable. EDF should not be given any further permissions without a commitment by them and/or local or national authorities to build a new northern road from Junction 23 on the M5, bypassing Bridgwater and Cannington, before any significant work takes place. They have already wasted 2 years in which such a project could have been planned and started. Given their track record at Flamanville, another year or two would hardly be noticed! Statements made by the Station Manager on television recently, which dismiss any fears about possible flooding at Hinkley show the same arrogance as their attitude to the traffic problem. I am reminded of the eminent expert who, commenting on the Fukushima disaster stated that, whilst they had considered flood risks, they had shown a lack of imagination with regard to possible wave size. I think that EDF have a total absence of imagination and can only hope that the IPC have the backbone to resist any pressures to rubber stamp this flawed application."

Joanne Logan
"We have lived in   for the last 26 years and feel we know the area very well. We live right on the road running through   and do not want to see an increase in traffic, as it is already a 'rat race' through the village at Hinkly change over times. We also do not want to see any Hostel accommodation on site and this is obviously going to increase the volume of traffic. We also have grave concerns bout the overall noise and dust polution levels from the proposed works. We see that a lot of land has been purchased and wonder, in reality, how close to our house and village it is going to come. Overall, we feel that it would be in the best interests of our local community, the environment which is a conservation area and an area of outstanding beauty if NO nuclear power station was built."

Christopher Gwyntopher
"I object to the building of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point for the following reasons: Local people’s lives are likely to be significantly disrupted due to heavy construction traffic on roads causing congestion and danger of accident. The foundations of houses near the access road may well be damaged by resulting vibration. The protection of people working there or living in the vicinity from health threatening radiation cannot be guaranteed. Such threats may come from leaks similar to those which have occurred at other nuclear installations such as the reprocessing plant at Sellafield and Dounrae Nuclear Power Station. They may also come from catastrophic and unexpected environmental events such as the tsunami and earthquake which lead to melt down major radiation leak at Fukushima. Japan’s local and national authorities were as aware of and able to prepare for such a nuclear disaster as any in the world. They were not ready for the Fukushima disaster and consequent health threats, disruption and psychological damage. Hinkley is immediately next to an area with a high risk of flooding according to the Environment Agency. Climate change makes such flooding more likely. The commission must provide for the protection of the health of people living elsewhere in the UK due to wind and current dispersal of radioactive materials and the sale of contaminated food. Dangerous levels of radioactive from Fukushima have been found in Tokyo. I expect the Commission will be reading the analysis of "What would have happened to the fallout if a Tsunami damaged Hinkley Point on 11th March 2011? Air modelling of fallout plume.” By Chris Busby, Dai Williams and Cecily Collingridge No safe way has yet been found of disposing of the nuclear contaminated waste that would be generated by the proposed new power station. This waste will represent an ongoing threat to the health and safety of the local population. It will also be a threat to the health and safety of people living close to the transport routes if such waste is moved to another place. The presence of a new nuclear power station and the transport of nuclear materials to and from Hinkley would make the areas affected potential terrorist targets. The full economic cost of the construction is likely to be very large if the cost of waste disposal, disaster protection and clean up after an accident or explosion are included. Christopher Gwyntopher BA, MSc. MA."

Peter Grandfield
"I have major concerns with regard to traffic volumes in the town of Bridgwater, the A 39 Trunk Road and access off the A39 to villages between Bridgwater and Williton. I do not believe that proper consideration has been given to this issue, already there has been a significant intcrease in HGV traffic along the A39 to Minehead as a result of supply vehicles to Tescos and Morrisons. It has been said that close traffic management from the M5 will contain the problem, I do not believe that will be the case. I have no objection at all to the construction of Hinley Point C, it is vital to maintain electricity supplies in the UK. However it is my firm belief that EDF should be made to construct a road from Dunball directly to Hinkley Point as part of any planning application. I have attended two public meetings and raised this proposal but each time it has been "rejected" on the grounds of cost and ground condition. EDF stand to to make significant profits over the next 25 years from this facility and the cost of such a road would be "de minimis" to the whole venture."

David James
"The Uk needs increased energy capacity to ensure security of supply. this can inly be achieved by a dramatic increase in nuclear capability. Nuclear is also low carbon and compared to renweable sources the cost is relatively lower. There is an existing nuclear power station on site and therefore this is an ideal location for a new generation nuclear power plant. This development would bring much needed employment to the area. This increase in employment will lead to an improvement to the existing infrastructure to the area."

David Freemantle
"Fully support application"

D. E. Packham
"Living near Bath and know the Hinkley Point area well through frequent visits for recreational purposes. I wish to object to the application because of (i) the adverse effects of construction traffic on local roads making me reluctant to take family and friends for recreation through the area to Minehead, Dunster etc.; (ii) totally inadequate proposals to deal with a serious nuclear accident. A major concern is safety in the event of a serious accident. Human error means that accidents inevitably occur in oil refineries, chemical plant etc.: nuclear reactors, despite reassurances after Windscale/Sellafield, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, are no different. The nuclear industry differs because the effects of radioactive contamination are often much more widespread and very much longer lasting than "chemical" pollution, even that from such an appalling accident as Bophal. Radioactive contamination from Chernobyl led to a ban on lamb for human consumption on 10,000 UK farms: 25 years later some of these restrictions are still in place. When maps of contamination, control and exclusion zones for Windscale/Sellafield, Chernobyl and Fukushima are centred on Hinkley Point, the potentially large area and enormous population badly affected by a serious accident at Hinkley is seen to include Cardiff and Newport, Bristol and Bath, to say nothing of Bridgwater and Weston-super-Mare: these might suffer long term evacuation. Part of my objection to the present application for a new nuclear plant at Hinkley is that it does not include credible plans for the rapid evacuation and relocation of the large population which could suffer from a serious nuclear accident involving either the reactor or the nuclear waste store. This objection is reinforced because the limited insurance that a nuclear operator is required to have (cf. Paris and Brussels Conventions) means that the U.K. tax-payer would bear the vast majority of the cost. Moreover there has been no realistic assessment of the economic and human consequences of such an event. Such an accident could arise, like Windscale/Sellafield and Chernobyl, from human error. Terrorist activity, in principle, significantly increases the danger of a nuclear disaster at Hinkley. Terrorists have already demonstrated their ability to fly large aircraft, full of fuel into buildings. Hinkley is within minutes flying time from Bristol airport. There is no proposal for an effective no-fly zone or of a permanent anti-aircraft defence. All of there should be provided at the expense of the reactor's owners. Natural disasters can further aggravate the danger of a nuclear accident. It was well-known that the area around Fukushima was subject to tsunamis. The designers of the plant will have "taken this into account", the government regulators will have been satisfied at their safety measures. Hinkley Point is only a few feet above sea level. Significant sea level rises will result from climate change. Further there is evidence of tsunamis in the area in the past and that they could occur in future."

John Edwards
"I have great concern that there will be intolerable road congestion in and around Bridgwater both during construction and afterwards. The existing road network only just functions at busy times. Accidents and even minor road works cause grid-lock in Bridgwater. I note that EDF propose improvements to existing roads and junctions but the forecasts for traffic convince me that the existing roads will not cope despite the improvements. A bypass taking traffic across the Parrett on the north side of Bridgwater is essential. When the A39 and Bridgwater are congested many vehicles divert through our village to get to M5 J24, some of the lanes are single-track so very quickly get jammed. Tourism will also suffer because visitors will steer clear of the area and, having found destinations elsewhere in the country, are highly likely to not return. Another factor influencing tourism is that many of those who provide tourist accommodation will instead accommodate Hinkley construction workers – at the time not a bad thing, but when Hinkey is completed regular visitors will have long ago found other places to take their holidays."

Timothy Richards
"I believe that the IPC should take seriously the risk of flooding at Hinkley Point as the area has a history which includes severe flooding in 1607. The reason for the floods was either a tsunami caused by an earthquake to the West or because there was storm surge up the Bristol channel. I refer you to the following study of this event by   of bath University who has reasoned that the 1607 floods were caused by a Tsunami 1607 floods Severn Estuary Research into the devastating 1607 flood that affected Burnham-On-Sea and the Bristol Channel in January 1607 has, since 2002, been the subject of a study between   . The flood occurred around 9am on the '20th January 1606', although in the modern calendar this is the 30th January 1607. The event is recorded on plaques in a number of churches, including those at Kingston Seymour in Somerset, and in Monmouthshire at Goldcliff, St. Brides, Redwick and Peterstone. The Kingston Seymour plaque reads: "An inundation of the sea water by overflowing and breaking down the Sea banks; happened in this Parish of Kingstone-Seamore, and many others adjoining; by reason whereof many Persons were drown'd and much Cattle and Goods, were lost: the water in the Church was five feet high and the greatest part lay on the ground about ten days. WILLIAM BOWER" The idea that the 1607 flood was due to a tsunami was first put forward by   in a scientific paper published in 2002 in the journal Archaeology in the Severn Estuary. A number of historical documents exist that describe the event and its aftermath. An area from Barnstaple in north Devon, up the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary to Gloucester, then along the South Wales coast around to Cardigan was affected, some 570 km of coastline. The coastal population was devastated with at least 2,000 fatalities according to one of the contemporary sources. In some parts of the coast the population never recovered from the social and economic disaster.   were led to think that the 1607 flood was caused by a tsunami, rather than a storm, for a number of reasons: 1. Some historical accounts indicate that the weather was fine e.g. "for about nine of the morning, the same being most fayrely and brightly spred, many of the inhabitants of these countreys prepared themselves to their affayres" and the ship at Appldedore (see above) is unlikely to be ready to sail in stormy weather. 2. The sea appears to have been "driven back" i.e. retreated out to sea, before the wave struck, a classic tsunami herald. 3. The wave appeared as "mighty hilles of water tombling over one another in such sort as if the greatest mountains in the world had overwhelmed the lowe villages or marshy grounds. Sometimes it dazzled many of the spectators that they imagined it had bin some fogge or mist coming with great swiftness towards them and with such a smoke as if mountains were all on fire, and to the view of some it seemed as if myriads of thousands of arrows had been shot forth all at one time." This is very similar to descriptions of more recent tsunami, such as the tsunami associated with the eruption of Krakatau in 1883, where accounts refer to the sea as being 'hilly', and the reference to dazzling, fiery mountains, and myriads of arrows, is reminiscent of accounts of tsunami on the Burin Peninsula (Newfoundland) in 1929, where the wave crest was shining like car headlights, and in Papua New Guinea in 1998 where the wave was frothing and sparkling. 4. The speed of the wave appears to have been faster than a storm flood as the wave is 'affirmed to have runne …. with a swiftness so incredible, as that no gray-hounde could have escaped by running before them'. In the summer of 2004,   embarked on field work in the area to record any physical impacts of the proposed 1607 tsunami that might still be left in the landscape. They found: Erosion of rock at the coast that is characteristic of erosion caused by high velocity water flow. This includes two large chunks of farmland on the Severn Estuary north of Bristol that were simply washed away, one where the foundation of the Second Severn Crossing is, and the other is now the reservoir for the Oldbury Nuclear Power Station; The deposition of layers of sand over wide areas at the time, discovered in boreholes in the ground from north Devon to Gloucestershire to the Gower; Large boulders that are only easily moved by tsunami waves have been found stacked like dominoes at and above the high tide limits all along the coast. These signatures of tsunami enable   to estimate the scale of the proposed tsunami wave and its affects. Tsunami height - In the open sea area between north Devon and Pembrokeshire, the wave was just under 4m (13ft) high, but as it entered the constricting funnel-shaped Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary, the wave increased in height to 5m (16ft) along the Glamorgan coast, 5.5m (18ft) along the Somerset coast, and over 7.5m (25ft) high, by the time it reached the Monmouthshire coast. This increase in wave height due to the funnel-shape of the estuary is exactly the same as the process that creates the famous Severn Bore. Tsunami speed - The speed (velocity) of a tsunami is related to its height, so as it moved up estuary and got squeezed between the opposing shores of England and Wales, it got faster, striking the coast at just over 12 m/sec (27mph) in north Devon and southwest Wales, to just under 14 m/sec (31mph) along the Glamorgan coast, to 14.5 m/sec (32mph) in Somerset, and over 17 m/sec (38mph) in Monmouthshire. This agrees well with the contemporary observations regarding the speed of the wave. Tsunami inundation - On the flat coastal areas the tsunami was able to penetrate a considerable distance inland. The maximum inland penetration possible of a moving tsunami wave in north Devon and southwest Wales would have been just under 2.5 km (1.55 miles), in Glamorgan just over 3 km (1.86 miles), in Somerset just under 4 km (2.5 miles), and in Monmouthshire just under 6 km (3.7 miles). This agrees well with the accounts of the wave reaching up to 4 miles inland at Cardiff and in Monmouthshire. The fact that the floodwaters reached further inland in places, such as to the foot of Glastonbury Tor (14 miles inland) is due to the fact that the landsurface actually slopes landward in many of the coastal wetland areas, such as the Somerset Levels, so once the wave collapsed the water flowed landward under gravity rather than back to the sea. A possible cause of the proposed tsunami is not yet known, but the possibilities include a landslide off the continental shelf between Ireland and Cornwall, or an earthquake along an active fault system in the sea south of Ireland. This fault system has apparently experienced an earthquake greater than magnitude 4 on the Richter scale within the last 20 years, so the chance of a bigger tsunami earthquake is a possibility. It may also have been a combination, in that an earthquake might have triggered a submarine slide. In the final analysis the fact that the area WAS flooded extensively, I believe that it could happen again and that therefore Hinkley Point is unsuitable for new Nuclear Power stations."

Sedgemoor Traffic Action Group
"The proposals traffic analysis and proposed mitigation is wholly inadequate and do not go far enough to reduce the impact of the Hinkley Point C development on the local area and population. Somerset County Council has produced a traffic plan that demonstrates that Bridgwater will be gridlocked by 2015 without the Hinkley Point C development. No work should be allowed to commence with regard to the Hinkley Point C development until an alternative route to the site, such as a Bridgwater Northern Bypass has been constructed to mitigate the traffic such a large development will generate and aid local evacuation should it ever be necessary. In response to a petition calling for a Bridgwater Northern Bypass, which now contains over 2,500 signatures, Sedgemoor District Council called a public meeting of their Community Scrutiny Committee on 10th August 2011 and this meeting unanimously made the following request: “The Scrutiny committee urges EDF not to submit a Development Consent Application to the IPC until such time as EDF have robustly and comprehensively assessed traffic impact and means to mitigate it, including a truly comparative assessment of a Northern By-pass and online improvements, to the satisfaction of the Local Authorities.” This was unanimously endorsed by the full Sedgemoor District Council Executive on 24th August 2011 however it has been totally ignored by the applicant to such an extent that the local authorities have commissioned their own study into the feasibility of a Bridgwater Northern Bypass and this study HAS NOT YET BEEN PUBLISHED. Inadequate traffic planning and road construction for the Hinkley Point C development will have massive detrimental consequences on Sedgemoor and West Somerset on numerous levels. The applicant has not taken local residents concerns seriously in the amount or type of consultation they have conducted. Local communities that will be affected by the Hinkley Point C development have not been properly asked or listened to by the applicant about what measures they want to mitigate the disruption the development will cause. They have however been told by the applicant what they need and will get by a series of ‘experts’ proffered by the applicant. These ‘experts’ have told the local community what they need and what they will get, his is not consultation and as such many members of the local community have lost faith and trust with the applicant even before the project has been approved. Many local people and members of Sedgemoor Traffic Action Group are not anti the Hinkley Point C development however we do want the area and the people who live in it to be treated fairly and we believe that the traffic impact of such a large project has not been taken seriously in this application particularly due to the omission from the project of a northern bypass for Bridgwater."

Sheena Coats on behalf of Mr W Yeo
"I disagree with EDF's planning application as being inadequate considering the excessive amount of vehicles which will be clogging up our roads and villages. Cannington needs a by-pass now to make the village a safer place to live. The noise and vibration caused by lorries on Rodway Hill is beyond belief. As an elderly resident I rely on community care at my home. How are care workers, nurses and doctors expected to keep to schedules in and around Bridgwater with the present roads clogged up with the amount of Hinkley traffic which is coming. In some cases timing can be crucial and lives put at risk. This also applies to emergency vehicles."

C Freeman on behalf of Mrs K Freeman
"I strongley object to thr proposed amount of trafic that will go through Bridgwater during the constuction of Hinkley C . My solution to this problem would be a Norther Bypass from J23 of the M5 direct to Hinkley . Crossing the Parott would be with a Barage (which would do 4 things a) stop Bridwater from flooding b) enable the road to cross the river c) install some turbines to genarate some green electric from the tide and d) the trafic in Bridgwater would be reduced) a lock could be installed but is probably not needed. This way every one is a winer and EDF will also be generating some green electric too."

Newport Friends of the Earth
"Newport Friends of the Earth are very concerned about the proposed Hinkley Point C European Pressurised Reactor. Newport lies just 43km (27 miles) to the north west of the site, and would be affected if any serious incident should occur with the reactor itself or at the spent fuel storage facility. Any nuclear incident will potentially affect about 116 000 people in Newport (and about 2 million in the wider South Wales area, 66% of the total Welsh Population).The United States America ordered the evacuation of its citizens within a 80km (50 mile) exclusion zone around Fukushima, following the disaster there nearly a year ago. Newport would lie well within this area should a similar zone be applied at Hinkley Point. What plans (if any) for the evacuation of the wider area have been submitted by the developer, Electricité de France? What monitoring of routine discharges affecting populations downwind are proposed, and would these be made publicly available? The people of Newport have not the opportunity to comment on the wider implications of Hinkley C, as only local matters are to be considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). Another area of concern is the fact that on a recent visit to the area, numerous signs on the roads referred to construction traffic for Hinkley Point C, before any decision on development consent by the IPC had been made. It appears that approval has been granted by another authority. The reactor site and associated spent fuel storage facility are in a low lying area, next to the Bristol Channel. This site carries a 100 year flood risk. What plans are proposed to deal with this? The operation of Hinkley Point C will add to the stock of highly active radioactive waste. Should we be adding to this, when there are no existing plans for the long term management of radioactive waste as recommened by the Flowers Report in 1976? This would be a burden that future generations would have to carry. The local area is already contaminated by enriched uranium. The construction of Hinkley Point C would cause a lot of disruption and noise to the surrounding communities. Would these communities be adequately protected from this? The building of Hinkley Point C represents an unacceptable risk not only to the local people and wildlife of north Somerset but to the people and wildlife of Newport, including the Gwent Levels Site of Special Scientific Interest."

Andy Howse
"This country needs to replace its ageing power station capacity. In 1956 my grandparents lived in a house in SE London, Down stairs had Gas lighting, nothing upstairs and an outside toilet. This was not unusual! Now every house has Electric light, immersion heater, the kitchen is full of gadgets - all electric, and the the rest of the house is full of electric powered entertainment. The demand for electricity increases every year and shows no sign of slowing down. The UK needs a mix of power supply, there is a place for wind power, and in future wave power will become more important. But there is a need for a constant and reliable supply which can produce a steady supply which forms the main part of the supply. This 'Base Load' has been provided by both Nuclear and Fossil fuels in the past. New Nuclear is the only way of providing this Base Load while reducing this country's carbon footprint which needs doing, and doing fast!"

Fiddington Parish Council
"Representation Statement on behalf of Fiddington Parish Council • The deliberate and cynical omission of EDF to pursue the obvious need for the Bridgwater Bypass, prevents the IPC from considering this necessary requirement for the Hinkley Point C proposals. • The Quantock Cluster of 13 Parish Councils, which includes Fiddington, believes the quality of life of all villagers within the area will be seriously reduced without a direct link between J23 of the M5 and the C182 road • Peak traffic movement within Bridgwater, already difficult, will be at gridlock with over 800 extra traffic movements during Hinkley Point C new build, without the Northern Bypass in place • The inevitable noise, dust, disruption and shear inconvenience would be tolerated if there is a lasting legacy, The Northern Bypass, left at the end of the project. • We believe the cost of a Northern Bypass, estimated and updated from the 1990 report, would and must be affordable at less than 3% of the total project • Fiddington specific The narrow winding lane, with very few passing places, between Castle Street, Stogursey and the A39, and passing through Fiddington must not be used by Hinkley Point traffic • Fiddington specific It is imperative that the license for non-residency at Mill Farm Caravan and Camping is strictly adhered to, and no additional places are allocated to EDF"

Tina Gardener
"Freight laydown area to be built to the south of Combwich. Building on this flood plain will cause enormous disruptions on the C182 with the extra transport to bring in materials to raise the flood plain by 1m in height. Also noise and light pollution will effect the village. Goods wharf in Combwich. It was thought that only AIL's would be brought in through Combwich which is acceptable although will cause inconvenience. Why does other goods need to be brought into Combwich when there is a facility being built off Hinkley? Concerns about both wharves being used in unsocial hours. Traffic. We will be greatly effected by the increase in traffic before the Cannington bypass is built. Bridgwater will become gridlocked"

Frances Elizabeth Fawkes
"I would like to register with the IPC because I would welcome the opportunity to have some input into some aspects of the development that concern me. So far the consultation process has left me feeling completely manipulated by EdF. Yes we have had forums but they say they want to listen and then ignore what we say. As a local resident, I appreciate that the impact of this proposed development will be enormous. Throughout its application EdF continually uses the word ‘minimise’. The word loses all meaning in this context because of the scale of the disruption this project will bring to this area. There is no way in which any mitigation can go anywhere near compensating for what EdF is proposing for this area. However, what I would like to raise with the IPC and hope that it would cover in its investigation is the monitoring of the work. In its application, EdF lays out, in great detail, how it plans to abide by all the various planning regulations. The waste management strategy which it intends to subcontract presumably including the ‘low’ level radioactive waste together with the sampling, record keeping and training to be undertaken during the construction phase is described in great depth. Various aspects of the project will subcontracted out and control of the whole will be paramount. Can we trust EdF to do this effectively? Its track record at Flammanville is not good. As EdF is a private company and one in which the French Government has a large stake, what controls are in place for supervising the work? Do we have sufficient independent expertise in place to supervise such a project or will we be dependent on what EdF reports to various government departments? In making its recommendations to the government, I trust the IPC will have examined these aspects. Who is responsible for any changes to the reactor design – EdF has stated that they have gained experience with the two EPRs currently under construction and Hinkley C will benefit. Is the design that has been approved the final one? If not who approves any changes? If the IPC is not responsible for the actual design, it should at least examine the controls as it is giving the go ahead to what could prove to have disastrous consequences for this country. Within the construction timetable, there is mention of an interim waste fuel rod facility. I understand that the final disposal of the waste fuel is outside the remit of the IPC but, as a local, I am concerned at how long this interim facility will operate and have the flood risk assessments taken into account this possibility given the accident at Fukishima."

Judith Fursland
"The village of Cannington is a rural village with medieval streets forming a greater part of its centre. EdF has not listened to, or accounted for, the unique quality of this village. It is not constructed to take numerous HGV's on a minute by minute basis throughout the day: air, noise, visual, light and sensual pollution will permeate the local and surrounding areas. The health. safety and well being of humans and animals will be severely compromised. The number and size of vehicles already abusing the village is a mere drop in the ocean The majority of the housing is on the North /N.East side of the road whereas the Health Centre, Churches,Youth Club, butchers, bakers, Village Hall, Scout/Army Cadets and two pubs are on the South/S.East side..Access is across the main road. Disabled, elderly, young and people with prams or mobility scooters are at a great disadvantage on the narrow pavements or crossing the roads. Students and cattle cross the road twice a day near Brymore Lodge. This is an unsighted bend and narrow road with no pavements. Already the village is inaccessible when an accident occurs on the A39, delays of six hours are not uncommon. Rescue vehicles have difficulty reaching victims and traffic is directed onto very narrow country lanes which soon become snarled up. Sometimes the congestion reaches Bridgwater. Cannington was recommended by Inspector Barnes' Report to have no further invasion after the construction of Hinkley A and B. What happened to that recommendation costing millions? Cannington needs a Northern by pass, this would alleviate the traffic problems in Bridgwater as well. It could have been constructed by now had EdF heard our concerns."

David Higgins
"I am a retired economics lecturer and examiner.I am currently a director of 2 consultancy companies. I have had 12 years experience of commuting on the A39 past hinkley point acess. The A 39 and minor roads to hinkley are inadequate for the current traffic flows. should there be a major incident. (Accident,natural disaster terrorist attack) the roads coulld not cope. There have been 3 such incidents in the past decade world wide. This would make the probability of such an incident at Hinkely over a 10 year period 1 in 150. This makes Hinkley an unsuitable site for a substantial nuclear development. The site is unsuitable on health and safety grounds because it is upwind and a few miles from Bunham on Sea. There is massive evidence that cancer rates increase significantly downwind of nuclear facilities (cancer clusters). There have been 3 scientific surveys that have found such clusters in Burnham. Nuclear developments should be on the East Coast not the west coast.Planning permision should be refused on health grounds. Planning permission should not be granted if there is a real threat of imposing significant costs at a future date. Once the useful life of the plant is exausted there will be nothing to stop EDF winding up the French company and leaving the costs and dangers of decommission to UK authorities. The ethics of EDF are highly suspect, they have recent criminal convictions for spying and computer hacking. On this basis permission should be refused."

Gill Howell
"I disagree with the proposed freight laydown area in Combwich. It is far too large and will have a detrimental effect on village life through noise, vibration and light pollution. I disagree with the proposal to transport materials and working staff along the C road from Cannington to HInkley. It is a narrow country road and the large volume of vehicles, buses and HGVs will create noise, pollution and congestion."

Michael Marshall
"I strongly beleive that EDF have not listened to local concerns about all the potential traffic problems that will arise for local people. Bridgwater is already becoming gridlocked and EDF have not come up with any sound answer to this problem. Whilst most people would agree that we need new power stations, the negatives for the local people far outwiegh the positives. Local people understand the extra money that will be a bonus for the area, But if gridlock is the future then very few people will vist the area."

N Amos
"Iam concerned particularly about the increase of traffic and the proposal to direct traffic through very small country lanes. Also the effect of the building works and additional workforce on wildlife and local infrastructure."

Kathryn Roberts
"I disagree with the application. I have lived in Cannington for almost 5 years. Currently, there is a lot of commercial and farm traffic along with the usual residential traffic. At times this is very busy and whenever there is an accident along the A39 between Bridgwater and Cannington all traffic comes to a stand still. I am very concerned about the amount of traffic coming through Cannington but also through Bridgwater. Again, at rush hour traffic is very busy and what should be a short 4 mile commute to work can become long and unpredictable. We need a bypass from Junction 23 on the M5 to Hinkley point for all the construction traffic. This is needed to keep our roads open for regular traffic and emergency traffic. Hinkley workers also deserve direct access for work and any emergencies that may occur at the Hinkley C site."

Peter Oates
"1 Transport a) HPC vehicles must be confined to the main roads (A39 and C182). The lanes are not adequate for the huge extra numbers of vehicles, especially large vehicles (pedestrians, dog walkers, horse riders, farm traffic, many single track sections) b) A speed limit on the C182 must be ENFORCED. c) The Highways Authority should be pressured to agree to road improvements, especially at junctions, (EdF have offered money). This is a common sense approach as a preventative measure. Their bureaucratic “no changes until someone is killed” approach WILL result in someone being killed. 2 Lowest practical limits on noise and light pollution should be set during construction AND ENFORCED. This is not an overnight affair, it is ten years continuously, and will itself have a significant adverse effect on health and wellbeing. Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Human Right Act states that “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the PEACEFUL enjoyment of his possessions “. EdF will be breaching the HRA because the project will remove the “peaceful” element. The very least they should do is offer PROPER compensation (in spite of what they claim, they have not) 3 On-site hostel The disruption of the peaceful way of life in local hamlets is assured by this project. The added pressure of a large number of single male workers will only exacerbate this. The number must be limited to that recommended by the district councils’ Supplementary Development Plan. 4 Flood Risk Assessment for the EA Flood Zone 2 (Document 3.2 part1) The FRA map (figs 30,31) clearly shows the C182 flooded, but the text (8.5.70 and 10.6.2) states that it will be passable. This needs to be clarified. The C182 will be flooded at Combwich anyway (EA flood map not shown in document), and ALL the traffic from the site will have to use the emergency road and the Shurton to Stringston lane or the Claylands Corner to Stogursey road. In this scenario, much of Bridgwater will be flooded anyway. EdF have extensive assessment in the areas close to the site, but I don’t believe they have adequately considered their access strategy on a wide enough scale. This demonstrates that EdF have not taken advantage of local knowledge, but have relied on computer models and people at desks in Head Office. In short, INADEQUATE CONSULTATION Bum Brook bridge. As a result of the FRA, this has been over designed. As proposed, it will be an eyesore - a 3m high three arched bridge plus causeway, 100m long, in the middle of an empty field!! The road bed could be reduced in height by at least 1.5 m. and the bridge should be shielded by trees. Also, what good is an emergency road if the traffic from it cannot go anywhere – the local lanes regularly get flooded NOW ; in the extreme flood event, they will become completely impassable."

Tina Woodhead
"Inadequate traffic planning road construction, I am not anti Hinkley Point C development however I do want the area and the people who live in it to be treated fairly and I believe that the traffic impact of such a large project has not been taken seriously in this application particularly due to the omission from the project of a northern bypass for Bridgwater."

Edward P Daughton
"1)Damage to Amenity/Ecological Harm I am a regular visitor to the area (Steart Point), both for Natural history and the "Wilderness"aspect. I am extremely concerned that a major project of this type will create ideal conditions for accidental pollution events and "site run-off", creating unacceptable levels of undesirable (alien) chemicals to enter what is already a stressed environment (Bristol Channel etc). I am, of course aware that there are already sructures of a similar nature on this site, but their main erection phase was some 30 years ago, and the local ecology has had time to "adapt to this. Another round of construction would possibly find a "tipping point" and cause aan impact on the fragile species diversity of this Internationally important wetland/mudflat environment 2)Effects of Construction traffic on the Local Environment: As a user of the local roads, i am well aware that they are fine for the present (limited) amount of traffic that uses them.. As part of the process of construction several thousand trucks per year will have to also use these roads, creating an impossible pressure on this infrastructure... The simple answer to this would be to "improve (widen) the roads", but this would also create issues for the local environment as delineated above. 3) There appears to be no "Long term" Economic Benefit.. A few short term jobs during the building phase, and then back to "business as usual" as the reactor complex is completed and operational. 4)There Appears to be a Alck of Understanding of the need for Adequate Emergency Planning. In the last 100 years there have been just short of 20 seismic events reported in Somerset, including the Great Quake of Bridgewater in 1276 (estimated by some sources as up to 7 on the richter scale), The Great Quake of 1318 was also in this region and caused damage as far away as Canterbury., In 1248 Wells Cathedral was badly damaged, and as we all know, in 1275 the chapel on Glastonbury Tor was damaged in an earthquake. This is say nothing of (and particularly of interest in the context of Fukushima) the Tsunami that hit Somerset in 1607 and is recorded on church walls all over the county... This was generated by a "slip" of a fault off the south coast of Ireland, this fault is still active and some writers have suggested another slip of at least the same magnitude is to be expected by 2023. Somerset is also effected by the "focussing effect" of the Bristol Channel, so that any tsunamis resulting from sea quakes (such as Lisbon in 1753 (damage and fatalities in Cornwall as well as a flooding event in precisely the area where the new reactor is to be built.)) are amplified We also have a large population (some 100 - 150,000 people) living within the 20km area that would have to be cleared if there was a problem. I have no problem with the idea of Nuclear Power, per se, in fact i have to see it as one way of dealing with the "Energy Gap" for the next 50 years.. However i see Hinkley as a very bad site for this for the above reasons. If you need data on the seismic/tsunamic history of the area, i will be happy to provide the fruits of my researches into this area."

Jean Howard
"Disagree with: Transport - Roads and traffic Working hours - 24 hour working Noise, dust and pollution"

Roy Fursland
"My concerns are about the traffic on the A39 and in the Bridgwater area. I have lived in this area all my 73 years and wish to continue to do so. The amount of traffic has grown out of all proportion with private, goods, agricultural, leisure ,holiday, service, bus and coach vehicles using roads designed for horses and carts. I have to cross the A39 at least twice a day to access my fields and at times I take my life in my hands. Had I wished to live amongst this volume of traffic, I would have moved to Bristol. Bridgwater and Cannington cannot accomodate all this urban activity. The health and safety of humans is a prime factor in any consideration. EDF has not, in its arrogance, factored in the human element. £sd or £p are all it sees."

Lynda Laird
"? A representative of IPC stated on the radio that there will be “specific regard to the local community”. ? With this in mind the planning application details submitted by EdF will drastically affect the local community not only in Cannington but the whole of the A39/A38/M5 infrastructure in this area. ? Cannington, although only four miles outside of Bridgwater, is a rural village surrounded by working farms, open countryside and is situated very near to the Quantock Hills, favouring tourism and a safe, peaceful lifestyle. ? In order to access Hinkley Point, all traffic has to pass through the centre of the village on the A39 to access the C182.. This route passes the village primary school combined pre-school, the village hall, and the college for land-based studies. It also affects Brymore Agricultural College. There are very narrow pavements on this route, used by young children and parents, elderly and nursery groups using the village hall, together with many students walking between different learning locations situated around the village. We also have various light industries in and around the village: a busy quarry with regular movement of lorries; normal farm traffic; additional farm traffic travelling to and from the grain store; a very busy equestrian farm/venue; tourism traffic; workers travelling to and from Hinkley A and B sites and outages when up to 1500 extra contractors move into the area. ? Traffic movement over the years has escalated beyond the capabilities of the present infrastructure, particularly when a fatal accident occurs on the A39, which sadly can be of regular occurrence. The road can be closed for a period of seven hours causing traffic to divert to minor side lanes causing havoc, chaos and danger on roads not suitable to be used by HGV’s etc. The whole area becomes totally gridlocked. ? In Cannington, the amount of traffic movement amounting to one every FOUR SECONDS will make life unbearable for all residents. ? EDF has consistently ignored local knowledge and advice given by residents and appear to believe that a computer can give better expert and accurate reasons for traffic movement rather than those who actually live in the area. Their plans to alter roads, junctions and people’s gardens and property are totally unjustified as the existing infrastructure is too old and complicated to enable satisfactory alterations. ? The amount of proposed traffic movement will be detrimental to any access for emergency services which could cause loss of life through ill-health or accidents. ? With the amount of proposed traffic movement constantly travelling through from and to Bridgwater on the A39, there could be frightening consequences in the case of a nuclear emergency at Hinkley Point. ? With the amount of proposed traffic movements, traffic will become gridlocked when the refuse, parked vehicles e.g. house removals, deliveries etc. hold up traffic. ? Sedgemoor District Council has stated that by 2016, Bridgwater will be at high risk of gridlock due to the developments that are proceeding or being planned using the present infrastructure. ? A northern route bypass from Bridgwater would alleviate all of these problems particularly if it was used as a service road only to Hinkley Point. This would accommodate any plans for future nuclear sites, alleviate the gridlock problems whilst the site is being developed and beyond, give direct access for all workers and deliveries and give better and safer access in the case of a major emergency and also stop the requirement of a park and ride scheme in Cannington which could cause major problems with flooding. ? Finally, if the above suggestion is vetoed, the proposed western bypass should be built before any further development plans take place giving the residents of Cannington a quality of life that will be badly affected for many years if this bypass is not built."

David Westmore
"I support the strategic and environmental requirement for replacement nuclear generation at Hinkley Point but recognise that there is going to be some local, short lived environmental and social impact during the construction period. Every effort should be made to minimise this social and environmental impact during the construction in the support of the majority of the local community."

Pawlett Parish Council
"The mood of the Parish in genral is that we oppose the planning application on a number of grounds and the main one being that the proposed Transport Infrastructure do develop Hinkley C. is not good enough . Would a better sollution be to provide a Bypass to the northern side of Bridgwater?"

K Nathe
"There is no good site for nuclear, but even then, Hinkley Point is one of the worst possible sites for the following reasons: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT • Hinkley Point includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) targeted to have 95% of the SSSI areas in favourable or recovering condition by 2010 - NOT to destroy them! • Removal of Woodlands and Hedges destroys habitat for a variety of protected species and threatens biodiversity. EFFECT ON ROADS Increased congestion and pollution from construction traffic movement through villages. Only one road and no bypass planned for Bridgwater and 700 Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) per day estimated. • Negative impact on quality of life - noise, stress, radioactivity related health impacts. • Local Consultation in actual area around Hinkley Point insufficient and council unhappy. Congestion will negatively affect tourism and farming for many years. Damage to housing - vibration damage and subsidence risk. EVACUATION PLANS • Evacuation plans in the event of any catastrophe doesn't appear to be in the EDF application. • There is only one access route - a single carriageway over busy A and C roads through a town and villages. Potential problems for emergency vehicles which would arise in the event of road accidents (anticipated due to increased volumes) or a worse case scenario - a nuclear disaster on site -such as seen recently at Fukushima, Japan. • If B station has an accident while C is being built EDF doesn't have evacuation procedure for the workers. FLOODING ISSUE • There is a 100 year risk in this area and waste storage will be kept on site for at least 160 years. DELAY WITH EDF NUCLEAR BUILDS EDF have 3 EPR build projects with design and construction problems resulting in time and cost over-runs at Flamanville (France), Olkiluoto (Finland) and Taishan (China). CONTAMINATION OF LAND • High level waste storage on site poses a long-term threat to the environment. • In a report for Green Audit (Feb 2011), analysis is presented showing the presence of enriched uranium contamination on the site proposed for the new nuclear reactors. It was possible to show that the 2 km2 site contained approximately 10 tonnes of enriched uranium reactor fuel (http://www.stophinkley.org/PressReleases/pr110331Busby110329.pdf) HEALTH • Impact of chronic low level radiation exposure on health and the local ecology. • Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in the estuary. • Breast and other cancers up at Burnham-on-Sea and elsewhere (see: http://www.stophinkley.org/Health.htm). • Evidence of significant enriched uranium atomic fuel contamination of the Hinkley Point proposed nuclear site in Somerset and its potential implications (http://www.stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf) • JOBS PROMISE • Inadequate assessment of the number and impacts of large numbers of foreign workers. • Risk of unemployment going up as more people flock to the area for work than there are jobs available, as happened at Flamanville. • More jobs possible in renewable energy sector as in nuclear."

David Butter
"My initial objection is that I do not feel the full impact upon the whole of the Bridgwater area has been sufficiently considered in the application, this includes the traffic problems that will be caused and also the impact upon tourism the latter of which has a much greater impact for many years after the build. In Cannington I feel the application will have a disproporinate impact on the community. The fact that successive governments have not made sufficient plans should not mean that speed to build is a factor that overrides the local community. EDF are building this as a profit making exercise and should pay to develop a transport infrastructure that does not harm the local community and serves their needs best. A direct service road from the motorway north of Bridgwater to Hinkley Point is the best solution, this was the recommenation from the original enquiry and should be built now. The A39 is the main road that is often blocked and in an emergency their is no viable alternative, this means an incident at Hinkley Point could be made much worse and catastrophic. The access from Cannington to Hinkley Point is a narrow road with little alternatives should it be blocked. There is no traffic plan that can help against human behaviour and I have witnessed lorries travelling to the site that are exceeding the speed limit along the NDR in Bridgwater putting people at risk. Also I have seen two M J Church lorries travelling through Cannington in the last seven days with drivers on mobile phones an obvious risk that cannot be removed by plans but you can ensure the public are not endangered with a direct link. Also there are many houses on the edge of the village that currently have unspoilt views and peaceful enjoyment of their gardens that would be ruined by a by-pass. This by-pass would also cut across a school drive and create danger where there currently is none. Families also currently have safe access to open fields but it would mean crossing a very busy road and the inherent dangers if a by-pass was built. In short I feel that a direct access road should be built from the Dunball area direct to Hinkley Point as originally planned. This would remove traffic concerns and also increase public safety during the build and after for the life of the station. EDF seem very reluctant to engage in true negotiation and when you attend any open events you get no answers and only standard responses. The initial consultation was only on issues they wished to put forward and needs to be disregarded and a true period of consulation should be put in place."

Alan Davey on behalf of Iris Emery
"Mrs Emery would prefer that the proposed Cannington by-pass be built before the prelimanary works take place. The proposed road developments in Bridgwater are unliable to satisfy the projected traffic expected. EDF should seriously consider a Bridgwater by-pass. Many statements made by EDF, and their agents, have been incorrect i.e. the only Large Goods Vehicle accounted for are vehicles with three or more axles. LGVs are classed as vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight above 3.5 tonnes. This discrepancy will skew any traffic survey completed to date."

J Sherratt
"The time has come to stop any further procrastination. The drive for wind farms has diverted attention away from the now urgent need to secure the supply of electricity in thsi part of the country. The money spent on wind farms has to be doubled to provide an alternative source of electricity when the wind is blowing either too little or too much. This a complete waste of money. Instead the money should be spent on providing reliable, secure energy that is not dependent on gas from toher countries or intermittent sources, such as wind or solar. The benefit to the local community through the three phases, construction, generation and decommissioning, is huge and must be seized. I fully support this application and urge you to grant full permission without further delay."

Radiation Free Lakeland
"Projected Traffic/Construction - Traffic Vehicle movement in Cannington every 40 seconds during an 11 hour working day, purely for Hinkley Point C construction, in addition to normal Hinkley, and other, local traffic. -- Damage to Houses by vibration of traffic not taken into consideration by EDF. - 93% of Cannington villagers do not want the EDF traffic through their village. - Intolerable living conditions for villagers -Hinkley C is scheduled for a minimum of ten years construction. -Traffic pollution - Villagers oppose compulsory purchase of their homes property would be blighted. Contamination of land -EDF commissioned AMEC to take samples and make measurements of radioactivity at various locations on the proposed site for HinkleyC. Green Audit independently examined the data to see if there were any radiological safety issues. There is evidence of enriched Uranium pollution on the land. http://www.stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf Special Designations - designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) - a Site of Community Importance (SCI) - the estuary is designated as a wetland of international importance - a Site of Special Scientific Interest.SSSIs (e.g. the Gwent Levels SSSI complex) - Increasingly valuable and irreplaceable ancient woodland and hedges. -New nuclear build would require spent fuel (too hot to move) to be stored on site for 160 years. Adverse Health Impacts of Hinkley C Routine/accidental emissions will harm the public. In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. Cancer rates in Burnham on Sea are already up to five times higher than the national average. http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/pearson.htm http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_PR_COMARE14_critique.pdf Local Jobs -EDF says several thousand people will be employed constructing Hinkley C. The Flamanville scenario show EDF use subcontractors to import foreign workers vulnerable to exploitation. http://www.socialdemocrats.eu/gpes/public/detail.htm?id=135913&section=NER&category=NEWS&startpos=21&topicid=-1&request_locale=EN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx6pcqdOa7Y Democracy -EDF consultations not widely publicized. The industry has been protected from challenge following Fukushima http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima -The sustainable development committee advised the government against nuclear. Expecting opposition the government introduced a fast track infrastructure planning programme (the IPC) -Stop Hinkley have collected 12,750 against HinkleyC. -Road signs of Hinkley C are up already giving the impression of a done deal weakening local opposition. The local council salami slicing the application gives the same impression - The whole application is based on the lie that Nuclear is a green technology and will save us from Climate Change. (Hinkley Point is on the coast of the second biggest tidal wave in the world, climate change makes coastal areas vulnerable to flood risk ) http://www.link2portal.com/council-give-go-ahead-groundworks-hinkley-point Power lines - new pylons are twice the size of the existing ones. -Bristol City council , Exeter and South Wales have had no input on the decision making on new nuclear. Accidents at Hinkley Point would make these areas uninhabitable and emergency services not able to cope. -This national infrastucture project has had NO national input despite being a pre-emptive strike against this and future generations."

Huw Parry
"Although EDF appear to have followed the consultation process, they have done this as a matter of process and not listened to or acted upon feedback received from residence who will be directly affected by their plans. They have been underhand in the way they have applied for planning permission by using company names, which do not have a direct link back to them, making it difficult for locals to be clear who is applying for permissions. Although I have attended most of the meetings in the village for EDF Stage 1 and 2 consultations and attempted to make them listen to my views it became clear they only intended to have these activity inorder to been seen to undertake the process. I was very hopeful that EDF were interested in what local people thought of their proposals, but I soon realised that they had their own agenda and are determined to follow the direction they want. EDF have not listened to residence who are very concerned about how they will build Hinkley C without a Bridgwater and Cannington by-pass in place from the M5 junction 23 across the northern route to Hinckley. EDF option just for Cannington by-pass wihout any by-pass proposed for Bridgwater is unrealistic and will cause Cannington and the town of Bridgwater, major traffic issues!!! The decision to start work on site preparations without by-passing Cannington & Bridgwater shows how little consideration has been given to the constructive feedback provided, which will mean 300 to 400 lorries a day passing through Bridgwater and and the small village of Cannington. The village cannot sustain this volume of traffic it will make village life impossible as narrow footpaths and residential parking already causes issues. The A39 road from Bridgwater already has several accidents a year, which have closed the A39 with only narrow country lanes as an alternative route. Emergency vehicles have great difficulty getting through, imagine with the extra volume of traffic that Hinkley C will bring it will be a nightmare . Somerset County Council have already stated that by 2015 Bridgwater will be gridlocked with the increase in normal traffic without EDF volume of traffic for HinkleyC We have asked for EDF to consider a Northern by-pass from Dunball which will by-pass Bridgwater and surrounding villages . They have refused to even consider this option which to everyone else makes sense,they state that it will take more time to build and increase costs I dont think they have really looked into this option because their minds were already made up lets go for the cheapest option I and other people of the village are not against the building of a new reactor and the future development of the Hinckley site but please consider the needs of this community and the impact the EDF proposal without a northern by-pass will have for the next 10 years during the construction period. I ask you to consider the lack of true consultation undertaken by EDF. The underhand methods/approach and the high level of subterfuge used to achieve their ultimate goal of expanding the site at limited cost but with maximum impact on the community. There is an alternative route available, which has a higher financial cost but when considered against the overall expenditure of developing Hinckley would be minimal. The new rout would however diminish the impact on the locality. PLEASE let common sense prevail."

Styda Limited
"Styda Limited are fully supportive of the Hinkley Point C Planning Application. The build as proposed offers opportunities for jobs and careers within Somerset firstly within construction and engineering during the build period followed by a variety of permanent positions within the Nuclear Industry in the ongoing operation of the new Plant. Further the consequential effect to local supporting industries, trades and services like Styda Limited will be equally significant. The provision of jobs within the county will be a much needed boost to the local economy particularly during the current national and international economic climate. The growth of the Nuclear Industry in Somerset will be a positive move in the attraction to the county of new businesses and/or the relocating of established businesses to the area. The influx of new businesses can only be beneficial in the introduction to the county of new skills and to existing businesses within the county thereby offering the opportunity for growth a diversity of skills and improved excellence. In our view the necessity for the increased facility at Hinkley is essential both locally and nationally for increased supplies of low carbon energy and its delay would impose continued demands on an already heavily laden source. Styda Limited are a small local service company providing skilled construction and project management personnel. Approval of the Application would provide opportunities within the county for new work and continuity for skilled local professionals."

John Brown
"I have concern about the freight laydown site regarding the working hours and the noise and light pollution involved. The same concerns apply to the wharf construction and use during the building of Hinckley C. The road to be used by all traffic for Hinckley C in my opinion is not of a standard to support the volume of traffic. Also the increased noise of LGV during the extended working hours proposed is also of concern."

JGA Norman
"My main concern is with public safety, this falls under two headings: 1. Storage and eventual disposal of nuclear waste I understand that the EPR reactors will produce highly radioactive waste which will need long-term storage on the Hinckley Point site for the life of the power station and many centuries beyond. This waste will require adequate capacity and fail-safe cooling to avoid the problems seen in Fukushima. Long-term management of radioactive waste is a national (indeed international) unsolved problem, so each reactor site must make its own provision. 2. Evacuation and public protection in the event of a major incident I live in Clevedon, a town downwind from Hinckley Point when the prevailing wind is blowing. If a major release did occur we could expect radioactive contamination to reach us very quickly. I accept that this is a very low probability under normal operation, but abnormal situations do arise (terrorism, earthquake, tsunami) so the probability is not zero. The submission is silent on both these points."

Lesley Susan Jones
"ON SITE CAMPUS - too large ( will increase adult population by 50% in Stogursey Parish), too close to hamlets, mainly single male occupants (as with Hinkley B) nothing for them to do in the area, additional traffic with campus dwellers looking for things to do in time off, additional traffic servicing the campus occupants, visually intrusive, building out of character with the rural location, noise and light pollution from the campus TRAFFIC - additional traffic from occupants of on site campus would use local lanes (Stogursey Parish) which are single track without pavements, used by walkers, horseriders, farm vehicles, cyclists etc. Locals will be forced onto these lanes with the imminent closure of 14km of local rights of way when the Preliminary Site Works start. HGV's for the site have already caused blockages in the lanes. Hinkley traffic tend to ignore speed limits. EDF cannot control this. No proposal to improve the Shurton - C182 junction, it was at times impossible to use this junction during Hinkley B construction because of the traffic flow. No construction traffic (HGV, vans, cars, buses) should be permitted to use the local lanes, all traffic for HPC should be routed via A39 and C182. That includes Park and Ride buses from Williton. LAND USE - construction will be for many years, over a decade, with the loss of amenity to local residents, the land closest to the hamlets is the last to be restored when it should be the first. If the fence was rolled back from the hamlets at the earliest time then this would ease the stress put on the residents, also replace rights of way as soon as possible. MITIGATION - compensation and conditions are not adequate for the loss of way of life, loss of peace and quiet, loss of health and well being due to stress, sleepless nights, loss of community with residents hoping to move if given the opportunity, if EDF buys houses these are to be let to workers possible multi occupancy which is bad for the community. WORKING 24/7 - is not an option. It will be intolerable to live in such close proximity to the largest building site in Europe with work being carried out day and night. The health impacts of this would be severe. Many residents are already suffering from stress and other health impacts due to this development proposal. The noise and light pollution from 24/7 working would make 'normal life' impossible, sleep disturbance is a form of torture. EDF are not trusted by the local residents."

L.Hook
"i WOULD LIKE TO BE INFORMED OF ANY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS AREA , POSSIBLE RELIFE ROADS FOR HINKLEY C TRAFFIC"

Paul Verbinnen
"I object to plans for this development as they do not take account of the world's changing climate, specifically rising sea levels. Additionally, the huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for its eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

Brian Stother
">National Energy Needs I understand the IPC has to balance the national needs for energy with the needs of the host communities. I suggest the multi- application approach undertaken by the applicants amounts to an abuse of processes and has undermined the role of the IPC but still have confidence the IPC can inject a greater degree of equity into the balance of national gain/local pain. The 30,000 pages of the application have failed to address major local concerns. > A39/A38 Roads To M5 The increase in the volume of traffic along the A39 and through Cannington will all Cannington residents unnecessary longer journeys because of the proposed inadequate off site infrastructure improvements together with a flawed project timetable. Emergency services will also be delayed. > Cannington Park and Ride The Cannington Park and Ride will cause me an unnecessary amount of disturbance from noise, vibration and light because the Applicants have ignored the local authority’s request to use acoustic fencing and appropriate lighting to minimise impact on nearby residential properties. The proposed shift pattern has 19.8% of the workforce finishing their shift at 00 00hrs and then going to the Park and Rides.( See Annex7- Transport Assessment/October 2011, Table 7.10) > Dedicated Access Road This application has ignored the strong consultation feedback from local host communities that no work should proceed until a dedicated road has been constructed to the HPC site from north of Bridgwater or the construction of a Bridgwater By Pass and a Cannington By Pass. >Timetable for Mitigation Works If the application is to be approved the proposed highway mitigation works should be in place as a pre-requisite to reduce the host communities’ level of disruption and not built as currently proposed. The off-site aspects of this application are not adequate to protect the social and economic of the host communities. The current mitigation measures/timetable to reduce the impact of the construction traffic fails to take adequately into account the severe disruption to local communities including Cannington and Bridgwater. National gain does not have to be achieved with the degree of local pain that will be caused by the current application. >Traffic Figures and Studies The transport figures/forecasts have failed to be sufficiently clear for the statutory authorities to comprehend them or for members of the public to be able to understand them. Do buses have to be added to the HGV movement figures? The Applicants admits that they have failed to produce a robust Bridgwater By Pass Study."

Matt Bowen
"I am concerned with the amount of traffic and pollution that will be caused by EDF's proposals. Traffic within Bridgwater and Cannington has got increasingly worse over the years; the proposals are going to put insurmountable pressure on already congested and dangerous roads. I don't think that EDF are concerned with providing any effective solutions to the problems faced by the local inhabitants of this area, they will ruin it at everyone elses social cost without providing any real benefit. I know about the budget cuts which are occuring in highways maintenance in Somerset; not only will the proposals be causing noise and air pollution as well as making the area more dangerous and less enjoyable to live in; the damage to the roads caused by huge lorries will put a larger strain on county resources than it can cope with, which in turn will inevitably lead to the need for finding more money for county/district councils to provide services, which will inevitably be through tax payers money."

Mr Richard Jones
"GEOLOGY - site is unsuitable due to the geological features ie Benhole Fold and Benhole Fault. This is not in accordance with the ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable). SEA LEVELS and GROUND WATER - site is in an area prone to flooding. ROAD INFRASTUCTURE - whole of local road network unsuitable for the increase of traffic envisaged. This compromises the emergency arrangements for Hinkley Sites. ON SITE CAMPUS - too large for rural area and limited amenities locally for the occupants. They will not stay on site all the time therefore increased traffic on local roads searching for something to do. 24 HOUR and 7 DAY WORKING - not acceptable for this rural peaceful location. At night the waves on the beach can be heard and that is about all. MAIN SITE - too large, unneccessary to dessimate such a vast area just for spoil storage, lay down, fabrication, etc. WASTE STORAGE - long term waste storage on site is not acceptable. A national depository/reprocessing plant should be found before commencing new nuclear build."

Tim Whittingham
"As a resident in Over Stowey I am very concerned about the impact on the Road network of the actual construction phase of the Stations. I would oppose new roads which may have a very detrimental effect on the Parish and the roads across the Quantock Hills."

Sian Pumfrey
"My objections to the Application fall into these categories:- HPC Development Site The site is inappropriate and the reactors unproven. Currently, they fail on 51 safety factors. The site will flood during the lifetime of the power station with current projections of global warming and sea level increases. The emergency access road is a totally inadequate plan as it leads to and from the tiny village of Shurton. Any emergency help will need to come from the direction of the M5 motorway and Taunton and therefore through Bridgwater, through the centre of Cannington before arriving at Shurton - a route of narrow, busy roads which already suffer from not infrequent total blockages. Workforce, Employment and Skills. Local people have been sold a pup in respect of the potential for employment for local people. EDF say that the minority of the operational staff are expected to come from outside the local area. 'Local' workers could come from as far afield as Exeter and Bristol; all needing access from the M5. See previous comment about routes connecting the site with the M5. Accommodation. Local roads will not cope with the scale of daily commuting workforce envisaged. The local accommodation market, both bought and rented, will be flooded and distorted by the influx of workers. Local first time buyers will be stuck at home, unable to afford a flat or starter home. HPC Accommodation Campus. It is ludicrous to inflict a 500+ campus on the local people living near the site. There is no justification for this. Access to the site is either good enough to enable workers to get there quickly in the event of an emergency, so on-site accommodation isn't needed, or it isn't, which makes the build unsafe. Bridgwater A Campus. This is nothing but an unwarranted carbuncle on the face of Bridgwater. Where is the legacy housing that might offer this build some legitimacy? Does anyone really think that a couple of sports pitches are going to keep the workers from causing mayhem with drunken debauchery on the streets of Bridgwater? Bridgwater C (Rugby Club Training Pitch). Taken with the 850 workers from the A Campus, this makes 1000 extra people with nothing to do in Bridgwater. Its aim is to utilise a sports facility within walking distance of the town centre currently bound by a covenant. Transport. This is where the Application really falls down. Even with the lower traffic levels of 1989, the original Barnes' Report into building Hinkley C proposed a proper bypass for Bridgwater. The minor changes proposed at a couple of junctions is laughable considering the current level of traffic congestion at peak hours. The plans do not show any new by-pass around Cannington until site preparation work is complete in 2014. So, the immense volume of industrial HGV traffic as well as light vehicles will trundle through this village, passing just inches away from pedestrians. Community Benefits and Mitigation. I reject these out of hand as mere beads for Indians."

D Voisey
"Public Safety in the Event of Radioactive Leakage The proposed “Hinkley C” nuclear power station, the whole Hinkley complex and other nuclear power stations on the Severn Estuary are sited in locations that would result in contamination of a large area of southern England in the event of a leak of air-born radiation The prevailing south west wind would carry contamination across a broad band of heavily populated country. Birmingham to London could be affected, such contamination rarely travels in a straight line. During a balloon release from Hinkley on 3 October 2011 the furthest balloon recovered was at Milton Keynes. Most other active nuclear power stations in the UK would, given the prevailing south westerly winds, have their contamination carried out to sea or across relatively less populated areas. Damage from the Sea The much commented on tidal surge of the 1600's does bear consideration when building for the long term safety of “Hinkley C”. Given current technological knowledge the site will need to be protected from sea damage for an unknown number of years. The current plans submitted by EDF Energy do appear to give this problem consideration. They have taken into account their estimate of potential sea level rise due to global warming but do not seem to have fully understood the amplification effect due to the shape and configuration of the Severn Estuary. Any offshore disturbance, given the converging coastline and the shelving bottom, could be amplified before reaching as far as Hinkley. The Canary Islands are in a geologically unstable area so it is conceivable that a tsunami could develop there with an unpredictable effect in the estuary of the River Severn. Conclusion I am a long time objector to the development of the nuclear industry so these two representations are only two of many that I could offer. If I was a supporter of nuclear power I would still consider it ill advised to site nuclear reactors on the Severn Estuary for the reasons given above. There seems to be in the nuclear industry an attitude that if a problem is unsolvable it will not occur."

Dr. J. B. Lawton
"II am concerned that Hinkley Point is at sea level and after the disaster in Japan I want to know if sufficient safeguards have been planned to avoid a similar disaster. Also I should like to be assured that the level of gamma radiation emanating from the reactor when measured by the most sensitive detector available is zero at all points outside the various buildings. Also I should like to know what precautions are to be taken to ensure that no radioactive material escapes from the site in the cooling water or by the release of gases from the reactor."

Shut Down Sizewell Campaign
"The Shut Down Sizewell Campaign is composed of and funded by approximately 300 members. It objects to the application for a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point because it raises many problems that would impact similarly upon Sizewell where there is also a proposal to build further nuclear reactors. We regard the application as premature, since it was made too soon after the Weightman report on Fukushima for all the issues in that report to have been considered, and because Dr Weightman himself admits that the brief for his report was so restricted that it had to omit many relevant lessons. Among these are the risk of terrorism at Hinkley Point and its consequences, the inadequacy of the emergency planning there (which his report was only able to touch upon since it is, remarkably, a non-statutory matter) and doubts about the adequacy of off-site electricity supplies. Not only is the geography of the area altogether unsuitable for a mass evacuation, with its single road, but the nature of the English population is profoundly different from that of Japan, and its behaviour cannot be expected to be similar to that at Fukushima. Yet there are no effective, tested or widely known plans for either the station or the public in the event of an emergency. Severe doubts exist about the health effects of emissions from nuclear power stations as complacently expressed by COMARE and in the Generic Design Analysis and accepted by the applicants. These doubts have been greatly increased by the KIKK Study, by an even more recent French study and by the discovery of raised cancer incidence in Somerset. The Campaign has a responsibility to see that these risks are fully examined at Hinkley Point, in order to be able to understand what they would mean in Suffolk. We regard the risk of flooding at Hinkley Point to be too great to allow nuclear materials and waste fuels to be stored there as long as is proposed, since there will be nowhere else to take them if the site becomes too unstable for their safety there. We are also concerned that EDF Energy are having severe difficulties at all three other sites where the proposed station is being built. The longevity of the proposed station raises serious intergenerational issues. It is of concern to us that the application proposes to damage Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and that it will inevitably impact adversely upon tourism and upon the quality of life in Somerset’s extensive rural areas. It seems that the traffic problems during the building of the station will be insuperable. We are also worried that there are unsolved problems of democracy, both in the complexity and scale of the proposal, imposing difficulties upon the public, and in the general presumption in favour of development that seems to be favoured by government. These problems need airing, and the public needs expert assistance and funding to air them. All these matters are relevant to Sizewell, and would impact upon East Suffolk in the event of an application for a new nuclear power station there. We reserve the right to include other relevant issues if they emerge during the examination."

Graeme Telford
"I believe nuclear power is an important part of the UK's energy strategy. Without nuclear power the UK will be too dependant upon external influences."

Jan Voisey
"This representation is based on my previous experience living in an area affected by major infrastructure; as a result I have serious concerns about the short, and more importantly, the long term effects of the proposed Hinkley C development. The building of an oil rig by Howard Doris in North West Scotland saw a temporary boom in employment, largely shift work. The after effects left a deserted housing site, away from shops and transport, family breakdowns, farms not restored, a great deal of road repairs and increased unemployment all of which became a strain on the local economy. During the construction phase, when large numbers of workers are brought into the area to work directly on the development and provide service industries, there is inevitably major social disruption and in-balance caused by people not used to living in a rural district, as well as extra pressures on transport. Further numbers follow in the black economy of the drug and sex trades. Extra education, medical services, social work and transport which are necessary initially become redundant. Once the first phase is complete the people that supply the service industries tend to remain, adding to the unemployment figures. In this case it is not just the Bridgwater area that will be affected but the many scattered villages within commuting distance. Local people are attracted away from small local firms by the higher pay in the construction industry causing these firms to close down; these jobs are then unavailable to return to when the initial phase is over. Considerable numbers choose to stay and settle in the area, from labouring to management, but their children then cannot find work and add even more to the numbers unemployed, needing social housing and related support. These hidden burdens on local authorities are not covered by mitigation payments. A further economic loss is to tourism, from which Somerset currently gets a considerable amount of employment and income, but would be much reduced if such a large industrial development were allowed into this extensive area of natural beauty and bio-diversity. The changing image of Somerset from farming and food production to industrial is detrimental to tourism. The current power plant already attracts unfavourable comment from visitors and unfortunately the nuclear industry is frightening to a growing number of people. The problems of such a large development are worse in a rural part of the country than if it were within reach of a larger centre of population. Whatever provision is made for recompense, if the company suffers further financial difficulties in the future, the cuts would be to money promised, but not legally backed, leaving the local authority to pay for necessary restoration. Whilst we need jobs, in common with all areas of the country, the Hinkley C development is out of proportion and overall the effect is highly likely to make a negative social and economic contribution."

Roger Cartwright
"I consider that the development of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley is inherently dangerous and that satisfactory long term arrangements have not yet been made for existing power stations. This should not be a high priority for public spending. and the plans should be suspended."

Andria Haffenden
"I live at the bottom of Rodway Hill on the way to Hinkley Point. I have lived here for over 20 years. The traffic is already horrendous and will get much worse with the building of Hinkley. Every day I take my life in my hands walking with my son to catch the school bus over the hill. Huge lorries pass by us within literally inches at speeds of more than 40 mph. This has already got worse because Church company are removing asbestos contaminated soil from the site. While waiting for my son's bus to take him to school within 5 minutes 10 laden lorries roared past us. This will get so very much worse with the building of Hinkley C. I am concerned on safety grounds about the plant itself. Has no one learned anything from Fukushima? The Japanese thought they had built the plant to withstand earthquakes, but no matter how clever humans think they are, they get it wrong - so will we. Nuclear power is NOT clean or safe. Neither is it finite - there is a limit to the amount of available uranium. We should be putting our energies into truly renewable energy. The clear-up from old Hinkley is already huge and I have heard that nuclear waste from B station is leaking into surrounding soil. Please don't be so shortsighted. It isn't only jobs and money that are important. I want to leave a clean, healthy planet for my grandchildren - don't you??"

John Stansfield
"Notwithstanding the above terms and conditions, the lessons of Fukishima are clear. The granting of planning applications for nuclear installations will merely prolong the dependence on nuclear, with all it's grave dangers (most clearly, the waste issue). The U.K. has Europe's greatest wind resource. We should be following those nations that have the foresight to embark at this time on a major adoption of renewables, with all the job opportunities that that will afford."

Kathleen Edwards
"I am really concerned about traffic problems in Bridgwater, and Cannington where I have relatives. At times Bridgwater is blocked solid and I believe it can only get worse due to Hinkley Point despite the improvement to existing roads at junctions. This will force me to go elsewhere, probably Taunton (across the hills and further way). In addition our narrow country lanes cannot take the extra traffic which will divert to avoid the Bridgwater congestion Recently on my visits Cannington I have noted heavy lorries travelling every minute for what I believe must be just site preparations and no doubt it will get worse until the Cannington bypass is built. Currently my grandchildren have to cross the road for the school bus and I am really worried for their safety and for others in the community there."

Robert Williams
"The environment will be detrimentally altered for all time; there will be traffic congestion; there will be dust when dry and mud when wet - this will destroy the tourist attraction of the South West of England."

Steve Smith
"I am concerned about adequate flood defences for the plant in the event of abnormal sea level rises due to tide /storm surges and/ or possible relatively small tsunami effects. This could have possibly disastrous consequences on the safety of the plant affecting the whole region in the event of flooding. I understand from the recent Institution of Civil Engineers meeting in Taunton that a 15m high flood defence wall is proposed to safeguard against that. I submit that this wall will need to circle the critical nuclear part of the plant to be sure that it prevents flooding from the land side as well as the sea side. It will also need to have a high embankment/viaduct to cross this wall and maintain flood integrity without the use of mechanical/electrical gates as such gates would be prone to malfunction in the event of such a flood. What is the base level of this 15m? Is it MHWS or some other measure of high sea level? What will be the basis of the design of this wall? I should explain that I am a Chartered Civil Engineer with some 44 years design & site experience including major projects which included major desalination plants, major bridges and tunnel approaches, although this statement is prepared on a personal basis. I would like to make a more detailed representation at a later stage when I have studied further the extensive documents submitted by EDF."

Ruth Williams
"This is a tourist area and will have a devastating effect to the livelihood of local people who are striving to make a living from the tourist trade. Nuclear power is dangerous and human error cannot be ruled out."

Mark Frost
"The most obvious problem is the utterly inadequate provision proposed by EDF to deal with the vastly increased ammount of traffic required for the many years of construction. The proposed western bypass will take 2 years to build and until then all construction traffic will pass through the streets of cannington posing significant safety risks and reduction of quality of life. Even when this is built the volume of traffic will still gridlock Bridgwater and will be especially bad on the very narrow A39 between Cannington and Bridgwater. I cycle to work along this road and it is bad enough now; it will be intolerable and unsafe when a heavy lorry is passing at the estimated frequency of every 40 seconds in both directions. This narrow stretch of road is a known accident hotspot and is frequently completely closed due to crashes. When this happens there is no alternative suitable route and the tailbacks will strech for miles. How can the use of this road be compatible with the requirement for a practical and safe emergency procedure at the build site? The proposed road infrastrucrure is simply not adequate if there was to be an incident requiring evacuation or requiring access to emergency vehicles. The obvious solution is to build a northern bypass to avoid all these problems, but it would appear that EDF are unwilling to fund this despite the obvious benefits and the fact that this would be a fraction of the total cost. Instead they seem to prefer to subject the citizens of Cannington and Bridgwater to ten years of chaos and danger. The appliction must not be approved until the traffic issue is resolved."

Helen Thorn
"I feel strongly that no development should take place until a bypass has been built for Cannington. The consultation process has been very poor, and it is very difficult to access information about the road alterations that are planned."

Robin Thorn
"It is my opinion that emergency responses through bridgwater and cannington would be totally inadequate. The local people have been given virtually no idea of what is in store for them."

Graham Nashe-Wiseman
"Whilst I have no objection to the actual construction of a new power station on this site I do have a number of concerns. One of my objections relates to transport infrastructure. Living in the Pawlett and Stretcholt Parish I regularly make journeys to Brymore School Cannington a trip that already has problems due to traffic volume in the mornings at the present time and the proposed plans to modify road junctions are totally inadequate for the increased vehicle movements during construction. The only way to overcome this situation would be to build a By-pass either from Dunball roundabout or via the roundabout at the other end of the dual carriageway into Bridgwater."

Chris Durney
"I am not opposed to the new station as I understand the need for it but the proposed travel arrangements of materials and workers to and from the site are not acceptable. There is an easy solution to this and that is to build a dedicated road from the M5 junction 23 direct the site. I appreciate this may be costly but an investment of this kind for our future should not come with the devastating effects that will happen if EDF do not realise this and continue with their current proposals which will clearly cause traffic chaos with the likely of accidents with the massive level of extra traffic. Please do not allow any other solution. Thank you."

Carolyn Southwell
"I strongly disagree with the increase of traffic and the lose of quaility of life the very reason we live here! The increase in lorries on the C182 is clear for anyone to see, there is a marked increase in the noise levels of traffic in our home. While waiting to join the C182 one morning last week four Chuchill lorries went past even in that short space of time, the road is covered in mud from them and the speeds that the traffic does is far too high, the limit should be lowered it is only a matter of time before someone loses their life on the road. There are going to be a a total of over 2000 vehicle movements per day within a few hundred yards of our home, we might as well be living on the side of the motorway. Quality of life - what is that?? Most morning we are awaken by the noise of the traffic, it has also had a direct impact on the value of our home, how and when are the loses going to be made up to us? It is clear that whatever is said by us the residents the project will go a head, so those that are affected need compensation and we need it NOW. It also needs to be made clear that very little local employment wil happen. We need open honest answers to many questions."

David Brown
"Severn estuary is a RAMSAR SAC and SPA. This application should be treated as a new application and not rely on the fact that it is already a nuclear site. Since the original permissions were granted environmental legislation has changed."

Cecily Collingridge
"I wish to register my objection to the proposed development to build new nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point. My belief is that the applicants have not demonstrated that the benefits would outweigh the detriments or that the location is suitable. Their proposals are insufficiently developed, unsound and safety would be put at risk. There is an over-reliance on generic data and not ‘site specific’ enough. The application should be rejected. EDF’s consultation process was not fit for purpose, was manipulative and angered and alienated those who engaged and failed to reach people who should have been included. The public were largely ignored. Furthermore, so far, the way that EDF structured their assessments had serious failings, being neither transparent nor accessible, resulting in issues being overlooked, minimised, or not available to external scrutiny by local residents, the wider public and other stakeholders who will be impacted. The DCO application documentation is worse. With regard to nuclear radiation, that intrinsic and most hazardous component of nuclear power generation: it has not warranted a chapter of its own as would have been logical. Their onsite radiological site characterisation was inadequate and unsafe and their quantitative ‘end land use’ risk assessment, based on a generic rather than a site-specific model, was totally unacceptable. The applicants also did not quantify the radiological exposure dose rates for ‘residential land use’ when workers will live and work on site that will exceed permitted limits. The off-shore radiological characterisation was virtually non-existent and limited in spatial scope and detail, thereby failing to establish the baseline level of contamination in the Bristol Channel/Severn Estuary, (a marine environment of international importance) or future impacts. Radioactive emissions will pollute the environment further and is irreversible and it is inevitable that more radionuclides will get into the food chain, migrate (e.g. via sea-to-land transfer, particularly at Burnham-on-Sea) and pose a threat to public health and ecology – none of which has been adequately modelled. The health impact assessment is seriously flawed. EDF actively discouraged dialogue in this area and have misrepresented and misinterpreted data. The investigations into the radiological and chemical trans-boundary risks and impacts to/from other countries or international waters, was cursory. I have serious reservations about emergency plans, environmental monitoring and reporting (existing and proposed), waste management, decommissioning and the long-term availability of personnel with requisite skill sets. The risk and potential scale of an off-site accident has been significantly underestimated. I believe this application to be insufficiently developed and also premature considering the crisis in Fukushima is ongoing and previously unidentified or addressed safety considerations continue to emerge. I object to the jetty as it will have significant impacts. The only reason people support it is because they cannot face having even more traffic going through their towns and villages and the infrastructure capacity could not handle 100% of materials coming by road. The only alternative is a dedicated haul road from Junction 23 on the M5 motorway direct to Hinkley Point but plans and a proper evaluation of this alternative is missing despite it being a feedback request at Stage 1 of consultation. Without it, you cannot assess the ‘need’ for a jetty. It is a serious omission in EDF’s application. A direct haul road is also the obvious mitigating measure that would considerably alleviate the detrimental impacts on the local populations’ economy and quality of life. Furthermore, having a second access route is an essential component for short- and long-term emergency purposes. Also missing, are plans for a Bridgwater bypass. Bridgwater is up in arms regarding traffic plans through this town. Cannington and the villages will have their life seriously affected. Traffic mitigating measures will create more problems than they will solve and will cause disruption whilst put in place. The concentration of worker accommodation in the centre of Bridgwater rather than dispersed will destroy the character of areas of town and create serious social problems. The pressures resulting from a large influx of migrant workers and their families on public resources and services have been underestimated. It is not a sustainable development. It will potentially violate Human Rights. There is no proper, comprehensive gender impact assessment - just a few figures dotted here and there. As a woman, I feel I have a right to know how this development will affect me and other women and girls and the information is sparse and opaque. The locality will be destroyed for current and future generations – a place that is largely rural, beautiful and peaceful and rich in designated areas of protection of local, national and international importance. There is an issue of confidence regarding this so-called ‘fast track’ planning system that, potentially, will sacrifice scrutiny for speed and is male biased."

Nicholas Freer on behalf of Hallam Land Management Limited
"Hallam Land Management (HLM) secured consent, in 2010, for the most important mixed use development in Sedgemoor District at North East Bridgwater (NEB) – a strategic site which includes the EDF Bridgwater-A temporary accommodation campus. HLM is fundamentally concerned that the proposals – in particular the proposals for Bridgwater-A campus and for the highway network - are incompatible with the ongoing delivery of the North East Bridgwater proposals for 2000 dwellings 110,000sq metres of a mix of commercial and business uses and therefore objects to/disagrees with them in the following respects: Bridgwater-A campus is inappropriately designed as temporary campus accommodation and should be designed as high quality permanent accommodation; the proposals do not include a demonstrably deliverable comprehensive mitigation package of infrastructure that safeguards the position of the NEB development and the committed investment that is proposed through the section 106 agreement that accompanies that development. It is not appropriate for the accommodation campus at Bridgwater-A to proceed on the basis of the investment made through section 106 contributions made to secure the North East Bridgwater development. The capacity of North East Bridgwater’s infrastructure is not demonstrably safeguarded on and off site. Concerns are raised in particular that the timing of the provision of Campus A, ahead of parts of the remainder of NEB, will result in the infrastructure capacity for North East Bridgwater being siphoned off by the EDF proposals. Moreover the timing of the proposals is likely to result in a demand for education, open space, green space and transport infrastructure provided explicitly for the NEB development which will take place over a longer period. The EDF proposals fail to recognise this by making appropriate contributions to the delivery of infrastructure presently planned as part of the NEB development. Little reassurance is given in terms of the impact of the proposals on the transport infrastructure that is relied upon by the North East Bridgwater proposals. So far as impact on Cross Rifles is concerned, large numbers of movements from Bridgwater-A through the junction appear inevitable. It is unclear that the EDF proposals minimise traffic generated through Cross Rifles and avoids any detrimental impact on the North East Bridgwater proposals, their successful marketing and early development. Further mitigation measures are likely to be required to avoid negative physical impacts on the NEB development during construction, occupation and demolition of the accommodation campus and to demonstrate the unfettered implementation of the North East Bridgwater proposals; It is claimed that the proposals have sought to support more permanent housing over and above the campus developments in Bridgwater, yet, the proposals do not appear to address this. Real and lasting benefits for the community would occur were the proposals to bring forward new housing schemes in the area. HLM considers that the proposals fail to capitalise on the opportunity to bring forward new permanent housing, with affordable housing providers, within the consented NEB (within which Bridgwater-A would separately sit). The proposals ought to facilitate the delivery of subsequent phases of the NEB proposals which would help mitigate the housing market effects of the Hinkley Point proposals. The provision made for mitigating housing market impacts and creating a positive community legacy is inadequate. For the above reasons HLM objects to/disagrees with the proposals. The objections arise from the detailed knowledge and assessment of the area and its infrastructure that has accrued through the development of the proposals for NEB and during their implementation to date. HLM would request that an examination or hearing is held and wish to participate in such a hearing into the Hinkley Point proposals"

Michael Beasley
"Disagree with use of A39 road between Bridgwater and Cannington for transport of site materials due to congestion and safety concerns. This road is already congested and is an accident blackspot. Extremely concerned about EDFs unwillingness to consider a dedicated northern bypass."

Hazel Neal
"Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area (one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset , Devon and South Wales , including my friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. The coast has an excellent and well known public footpath, which has hitherto attracted walkers and tourists to the area. It would be a great shame if EDF's plans wetre allowed to interfere with access to the footpath, or to the safety of walkers ,in any way. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for it's eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

Sharon Fisher
"My main concern is of the impact of this project on the local community. As a local resident I am aware of the issues of the increasing traffic load already being experienced in Cannington and the surrounding area. I believe that a bypass for the new Hinckley site would be of benefit not only to the local community, but would be a much better option for the site traffic to operate more efficiently and effectively. Cannington already has a traffic problem with vehicles parking obstructively and sometimes illegally, especially near the local shops, which on many occasions obstructs the zebra crossing; with the projected increased traffic load I believe that this would make using the local roads even more hazardous for pedestrians and car users alike. The added impact of increased traffic volumes would be: MORE fumes, MORE noise, MORE people. As a parent and grandparent, I understand the need for ensuring our energy needs are met for the future, but our immediate safety and environmental needs also need to be met and safeguarded, this means looking into and resolving these issues NOW."

Marilyn Kick
"I beleive that by giving EDF permission to build their reactors at Hinkly Point you will be jeopordising the health of my whole family. If the building goes ahead I can't see why a stipulation of that permission couldn't be the requirement to build a road from Dunball to Canington therby relieving the roads of Bridgwater."

Bawdrip Parish Council
"The Parish Council considers that the proposed transport infracture changes are inadequate to cope with the increased traffic generated by the project and should be reviewed. The Council also expresses concerns over public safety. In addition whenever possible the applicant should be obliged to favour the engagement of local labour, businesses and contractors."

Caroline Hope
"Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area (one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset , Devon and South Wales , including my friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for it's eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment. The above expresses my views on the expansion of the Hinkley Nuclear Power Station. Nuclear power stations are expensive both run and maintain and have frequently proved to be unable to withstand external forces with disasterous results."

Tony Brown
"I feel that the road infrastructure in and around the Bridgwater area will be unable to cope with the increased traffic necessary for the Hinkley C project. There are currently issues along the A39 from Bridgwater to Cannington when there is a road incident and these issues are especially problematic during the Summer months when this route is used by holiday-makers on their way to Minehead and; both popular holiday destinations. I personally feel that some form of by-pass would be the best course of action, thus taking any increased traffic away from the town and surrounding areas."

Danny Packer
"I have a 34 ft boat moored in the pill at combich and i understand there will be major works taking place in this area i am concerned that this will stop me taking my boat out into the river Parrot and out in to the Bristol channal where i fish a lot. Winter and Summer."

Chris Edwards
"As a Cannington resident I am concerned that the infrastructure isn't in place for such a huge new build. The main route through Cannington cannot support the excess traffic that will happen during and after construction. Already the trucks are ignoring the signs to bypass the village, and this is causing traffic issues as well as the danger to the local children. EDF must build a more direct route for construction and the addional workers."

Deb Millar
"Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area (one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset, Devon and South Wales, including my family and friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for its eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

Natalie Came
"I do not want the heavy lorries coming through the village for a few reasons 1 I have children and these very heavy vehicles are dangerous also they will tear up the roads and bring lots of dirt and noise to have this every fourth seconds there will be a accident is that what it will take to make the French company edf to listen to everyone's fears."

J R Langmaid
"major concerns about heavy traffic through the village of Cannington and on the A38/A39 through \bridgwater. A by pass for Cannington must be in place BEFORE any work on the construction of Hinkley Point C Power Station begins."

Mark Crawford
"I totally agree with the forcoming Hinkley Point C station, this will be an asset to the local community to include businesses that will benefit as well as local people with work that will be generated."

Caro Ness
"I strongly disapprove that a wetland will be destroyed in the construction of this site. I also disapprove of the fact that there simply is not the infrastructure in the area to cope with increased traffic. And why is the government continuing with nuclear power when we are rubbishing the planet because we do not know how to get rid of nuclear waste?"

Graham Browning
"I am very concerned about the roads upon which the new power station traffic will have to travel . We already have problems of large vehicles trying to pass. Farm machines which are too large to pass with ease at present will cause hold ups. I also feel that the accommodation facilties to be based to the West of the power station will choke the A39 and rural lanes at many times during any 24 hr period. THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO COME OFF THE M5 AT DUNBALL AND CREATE A NEW ROAD TO THE AREA BEYOND COMBWICH FROM WHICH THE A39 COULD BE JOINED SOME DISTANCE TO THE WEST."

Carole Ann Stone
"i disagree with the traffic plans that are currently in hand and advised as being sufficient to cope with demands of the preparatory works and the build. Firstly Cannington needs its western bypass now before the build comences and to reduce the risk of life costing incidents within the village and Secondly Bridgwater needs the A39 from Dunball bypass in place with at least a connection at Cannington if not the direct to Hinkley Point connection. It is my view that Rodway Hill in particular in Cannington is a jam point and could prevent emergency services reaching the station especially when iced up like last winter, when no traffic got over the hill for a couple of hours. The A39 between Bridgwater and Cannington is likely to be blocked for hours at a time already when small incidents occur, if a major disaster were to occur whilst another incident eas taking place it would be gridlock in minutes and as usual take hours to clear."

John Cole
"I live opposite the site ai Williton/Smithyard terminal and am worried about noise levels and volume of trafic at the turn over of shifts whatever times these maybe"

Emily Freeman
"I do not agree with the proposal to construct and operate a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C. I disagree with the fundamental reasons behind the proposal, and have safety concerns with the project. Ne nuclear power stations are not worth the time, energy and money they will consume. Building any new nuclear power station in the UK is committing to decades of unsafe energy and centuries of dangerous nuclear waste. In the interests of the health and safety of the population of Somerset, the surrounding counties, Wales and the rest of the UK, this power station should not be built. It will be damaging to local residents on a daily basis and will cause major pollution to the surrounding environment. Being near the sea this contamination has the potential to spread widely and internationally. On a larger scale, the dangers of nuclear power stations can still be seen in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster. Although this happened 26 years ago, there are still people suffering from the effects. If this power station is permitted, an associated risk is that such a disaster will happen and affect millions of people in the UK. Even if safely run, the situation in Fukushima last year shows that external influences can cause such dangers, and are entirely outside the control of the plant's owners and staff. The UK has increasing domestic and EU renewable energy and carbon reduction targets, and planning permissions should prioritise truly renewable energy plants over these dangerous and environmentally damaging ones."

K Mitchell
"Whilst i am happy for Hinkley C itself to go ahead, i am both amazed and disappointed that so far EDF are being allowed to plan this without an adequate infrastructure model being put in place. I live in Cannington and i work as a service engineer in the County. I believe i have the experience to make an informed decision on what would work and what is needed transport wise for a project of this size to go ahead without causing major chaos to Bridgwater and its surroundings. A bypass from the Dunball area near the M5motorway is the only way forward. EDF have claimed that it is against government policy to build new roads, whilst this is true using public money, i,m sure the government would be perfectly happy for EDF to commit to this using their resources and provide a true benefit to those who are going to be otherwise greatly affected"

Barbara Wigley
"I do not beleive that there is a safe way of producing nuclear power. Recent events at Fukushima have proved that even modern & so-called fool-proof reactors are highly dangerous. There are far greener ways of producing power - wind, water sun, etc. West Somerset is very well placed to harness several of these. The roads and housing in West Somerset are not suitable for the amount of traffic which will be generated, and new jobs will not be provided for locals - they will go to 'imported labour'. EDF are far from being 'in the black' financially and Britain will be left with egg on it's face when the major preparatory works have been done and EDF cannot afford to pay for the the finished product! We need to sto right now and consider alternative ways of producing the power that we need."

Tina Mitchell
"Although i agree with the proposed development of Hinkley point to provide future energy, i feel that EDF have failed to look at the real impact on the lives of all communities affected by the development. Despite numerous requests from residents to fully explore the possibility of a dedicated route from Dunball to Hinkley, this appears to have been ignored in favour of the easier and cheaper route through Bridgwater and Cannington. As a resident of Cannington i have, on numerous occasions been affected not only by the sheer volume of traffic but on 3 occasions have been totally unable to reach my destination due to accidents on the A39, resulting in the surrounding areas becoming gridlocked. If EDF are allowed to use their favoured route i can only imagine that these experiences will become a daily event, impacting on all aspects of life,work and leisure."

Combe House Hotel
"To whom it may concern - I am writing to express my support for the proposed scheme. The principal reason behind this being that as a hotel located in a rural location, yet close to the proposed site we struggle tremendously with the seasonality of our business. This coupled with the current difficult economic climate means that it is virtually impossible to implement long term strategic plans for the business with any degree of confidence. Sadly regards to tourism there has been virtually no incentive's, schemes or directives in place in the last 4 from at either local or regional level that have given weight to boosting tourism into West Somerset. This leaves businesses effectively trading on a 6 month cycle of April through September and having to survive winter months by whatever means they can, including closing for trade. This simply does not facilitate confidence with owners and leaves local people with reduced employment opportunities. Obviously tourism alone cannot solve this problem it must be noted that it is a sector which is at best stagnating - but certainly not growing. The proposed scheme to build nuclear power stations in the locality fits with a local understanding of power generation and the huge benefits it will bring principally with respect to primary and secondary employment. The proposed Hinkley C project will allow many local businesses to plan with confidence and secure year round employment for their staff by removing the seasonality effect. Although there are a great many other positive reasons, that are better commented on by other parties as stated earlier this is the core reason behind our support for the Hinkley C project."

Sheena M Tucker
"I have strong concerns regarding the following areas: 1. High flood risk site selection for laydown facilities, requiring approx 90,000 vehicle movements just to build and remove more than 80,000 tonnes, not including a probable additional 123,000 tonnes for the wharf. 2. Laydown facility, propsed scale of use, and particularly road freight deliveries. 3. Number, type, and timing of deliveries to the wharf. 4. Propsed new goods wharf. 5. Excessive working hours for construction and operational periods. 6. Effect on residential and leisure amenities, including noise, vibration, and lighting. 7. Cumulative and environmental effects. 8. Vehicular traffic generated by development. 9. Level of mitigation (to limit the impact of the development regarding noise, etc). 10. As the Hinkley site already covers a significant area of land why is it not using that for this project, to cut down costs of transport (and the environmental impact of noise, fumes, etc) for the high volume of journeys this will entail to and from the site from elsewhere, and the high costs that will be involved upgrading and providing new facilities not actually on site? 11. How strict are the conditions that the land must be returned to agricultural use as soon as the project is completed, and there is no option to reclassify as "brown-field" to allow further development/building later? 12. Although the new wetlands project at Steart is supposed to counteract displacement of wildlife and wildfowl from the Port of Bristol, this development as proposed could well negate these benefits and discourage the wildlife."

Anne Reed
"While I recognise the need for the development of power station, I would like to make the following points about the effect of this project on the area surrounding it, and urge that careful consideration is given to amelioration of those effects: 1. Increased traffic flow through the town of Bridgwater and surrounding villages, including Wembdon and Cannington. 2. Large numbers of workers who will inevitably want to use facilties in the town and may cause an increase in problems for the police and courts 3. Noise pollution in areas close to the development. 4. The health needs of a number of new families reloacting to the area, which has already absorbed a considerable number of new houses in the recent few years."

J Marriott
"  is a small closely knit community where we chose to retire in 2002. Whilst we do not oppose the construction of HPC, we are against the devastating plans by EDF for Combwich Wharf and the associated development for the lay-down area. Our objections are; • The unnecessary construction of a 10.1 hectares lay-down facility, on a flood plain, for storing AILs and as a Freight depot to store up to 800 containers. Wharf use for the 320 AILs alone, will take over 2 years of the 4 year HPC construction period leaving less than two years for other goods. The tonnage of other goods delivered through the wharf will be less than the 900,000 tonnes of materials required to build the lay-down area and the 45000 tonnes of de-commissioning material. A serious flaw in the FMS. • The proposed 24 hour 7 days a week working hours, including the arrivals during the night of tug assisted 90 metre barges will cause serious noise, light, vibration and pollution issues. This is unacceptable and working hours need to be restricted with no working allowed on Saturday afternoon and all day Sunday. The FMS already states that there will be no HGV movements on Sundays along the C182! • The proposal to use the lay-down area for breaking down road borne HGV loads and storing freight in the lay-down area. This will increase the total number of vehicles (LGVs) using the C182 between Combwich and HPC and will provide a loophole in the ban on HGVs on Sundays as there is no ban on LGVs. • The proposal to use all possible high tides for deliveries, around 30 tides per month, will seriously impair leisure use. • The proposal by EDF to modify the wharf and build the lay-down area before the Cannington bypass is built. This will result in 60,000 HGV movements through Cannington village and onto the C182 in just under a 2 year period. • The cosmetic changes to the A38 and A39 junctions through Bridgwater, which are already seriously congested, rather than build a northern bypass and without the HPC development were predicted to be gridlock by 2016. The original Public Inquiry in the early 1990s, into a much smaller HPC, strongly recommended that a bypass should be built. • Lack of immediate speed controls and visibility at junctions of side roads on C182. Whilst a recent traffic survey indicated average speeds were below 60 mph, it also showed that 20% of vehicles exceeded 60 mph and significant numbers exceeded 80 mph. The average speed also included a high proportion of slow moving farm traffic. • Minimal emergency planning if the M5/A39 are closed affecting travel into or through Bridgwater. What are the plans for major emergency at HP that would require local villages to be evacuated?"

John Attwooll
"The granting of this application will create adverse traffic conditions in and around Bridgwater and thereby damage the ability of residents to enjoy their homes. It will render travel in and around Bridgwater much more difficult. My current experience of traffic speeding through the country lanes leads me to believe that any aditional traffic will create dangers in my locality."

Teresa Heap
"Any further development, of any kind at the roundabout on the A38 at the junction 23 motorway should be out of the question. The area is already grid locked at peak travel times and is unusable when the M5 has a closure. It is already impossible for me to attend appointments in Bridgwater early in the day or after 4pm. I have seen emergency vehicles at a standstill due to traffic. More traffic in the area, I have been told it could be 900 vehicles a day extra, cannot be accommodated by the A38 between Pawlett and Bridgwater. A new much needed crematorium is being built on the A 38 between Pawlett and Highbridge. How are grieving families and staff supposed to reach it when the road comes to a standstill? I travel this area daily and have first hand experience on how bad it is already."

Jim Duffy
"I strongly object to this application on the following grounds: As Stop Hinkley Coordinator from 1999-2010 I became thoroughly versed in the local disadvantages to the existing plant. As the new plant will be several times bigger, the effect will be exacerbated. 1. Health effects on nearby populations particularly those downwind and along the coast from the plant. Routine 24 hour arial and sea discharges contain various man-made isotopes which are known to harm human health. Epidemiological studies which our group commissioned showed upto a doubling of breast cancer incidence and mortality in Burnham-on-Sea. Updates of the original 2000 study always confirmed the findings. A study on infant and perinatal deaths showed figures raised upto sixfold the national average along the coastal wards from Hinkley and including Burnham-on-Sea. 2. Emergency plans for Hinkley are inadequate. It is not feasable to distribute cancer-preventing potassium iodate tablets over the plume area should a serious breach of containment occur at Hinkley or in the proposed nuclear waste store. Nor is it feasable to evacuate the necessary numbers of people in the same event. Comunities such as Bristol, Bath, Weston-super-Mare, Burnham and Bridgwater may need to be evacuated in a worst case scenario given prevailing south-west winds. Other communities would likewise be affected in winds blowing contamination elsewhere eg Cardiff, Swansea, Minehead, Taunton, Wells, Exeter. 3. Compensating such communities for loss of life, land, habitation would be prohibitive. 4. No nuclear storage at Hinkley has previously been contemplated. The 160 plus year life of the store creates a new situation, turning West Somerset into a de facto nuclear dump. 5. Mike Weightman's review of risks at Hinkley is premature given all the facts have not been collated on the Fukushima accident and its short and long-term effects. 6. A breach of containment failure at Hinkley C would produce offsite seven times more dangerous isotopes than in existing Hinkley B: report by Large & Associates. 7. Traffic congestion in West Somerset roads and lanes would be nightmarish for many years, impairing the daily life of local inhabitants."

Gordon Taylor
"I am concerned about the effects of construction traffic coming via Bridgwater and Wembdon on the NDR and on through Cannington from either Jnc.23 or J24 of the M5. The most obvious route to the site is for a direct road link to be built from Jnc.23 straight to the site and at the end of the C Station construction the site of the road to be returned to its original state. This road should only be used for C Station traffic and the emergency services. All heavy equipment should come in by sea to the proposed new wharf at Hinkley Point"

Michael Harding on behalf of Joan Braddick
"I have big heavy lorries coming past my house every couple of minutes or perhaps more often from 7am every weekday morning, I am very concerned about the increase in traffic, we need a bypass or something asap."

FC Ford
"I am in favour of the construction of a new nuclear power station. The proposals for dealing with extra traffic on A38/A39 and through Cannington village are inadequate.National and Local government should be assisting EDF to provide a better solution in this area as a matter of urgency."

Roger Oldfield
"I can see nothing which convinces me that the site will be totally secure against earthquake, flooding or terrorist attack, nor that disposal of nuclear waste from the site will be totally safe. I do not think that the proposal should go ahead without the assurance of absolute safety, as the consequences of attack or accident could ne devastating."

Robert Morgan
"Transport implications 1. Access to the site from the M5 jcts 23 and 24 involve taking all traffic through the town of Bridgwater. Bridgwater is already severely congested and no major improvements are included in the application. 2. The road between Bridgwater and Cannington, the A39, is of an inadequate nature to cater for the additional volume of heavy traffic. This road is a known danger route. 3. No significant improvements have been included within the application to address either of the above problems. 4. Development on this immense scale clearly requires a bypass to the north of the town of Bridgwater and this should be a prerequisite for development. 5. Access to the Hinkley site is only possible via the rural village of Cannington. Again, the roads serving this village are wholly inadequate to cater for the nature and the volume of the additional traffic. 6. The developers plan to service this site directly through the village for many years, rather than complete the suggested bypass as a priority. This is unacceptable due to the public dangers that would occur. 7. The design of the bypass, however, is flawed for the following reasons: a) the proximity of the road to the residential properties; b) Insufficient land has been included to enable structural tree planting; c) At the southern end, land levels are to be raised rather than cut operations and inappropriate high fences and walls are to be inserted on elevated positions in the landscape. 8. Most importantly, the bypass includes a road connection directly to Withiel Drive. This is an unadopted, private road of limited width, no separated pedestrian paths and with a substandard access to High St. This vehicular connection would create a rat-run with consequent dangers to the public safety of the residential use of the area and other pedestrians. Cannington Park and Ride 1. There is absolutely no technical justification for providing this facility at this location. Park and Ride facilities must be provides solely at jcts 23 and 24 of the M5, thereby negating the need for through traffic at Bridgwater and the A39. 2. The amount of land needed to support a P and R would be much less than that proposed. The layout shown is illogical and inefficient and appears to seek to maximize the urbanisation of this open, rural field. 3. No perminent industrial, storage or other large buildings should be allowed on the site. 4. On the boundaries, no walls or fences should be permitted. All structural screening should be via earth bunds and blocks of hedge and tree planting. 5. Any illumination of the site should be restricted to low level bollards and no street lights or flood lights should be permitted at any time. 6. No public address system or amplified music should be permitted within the site. 7. There should be no storage of containers, portacabins, caravans or earth moving equipment within the site. Loss of Trees 1. The existing drive to Brymore School is lined with magnificent, mature deciduous trees which are a substantial amenity to the village of Cannington as well as the wider, rural area. No plans have been put forward to retain these trees or to include binding restrictions to ensure their retention and safety during construction works. 2. These trees should be subject to a tree preservation order. Residential Amenity 1. The adverse effects on the existing residential amenity of Withiel Drive has not been listed or considered by the developers. Matters raised at pre-application meetings have not been corrected and our comments have simply been ignored. These include loss of privacy, noise and highway dangers."

G.B. Harding
"The transport inplications that hve been put forward by Residents of Bridgwater and Cannington are being ignored. Total grid lock will be the norm and the passage of emergency vehicle will be impossible. Since the building of the A and B stations The Town of Bridgwater has doubled on size without any major improvement in roadways. Any gridlock on the A38 A39 will force traffic through residential areas which already support traffic movements that they were not designed for."

Bridget Salmon
"My concerns are twofold: 1) Environmental: locally, in respect of the colossal effect of the proposed plant on the ecology of the area; more widely, in terms of the precedent set here and abroad for further such facilities which "feed" demand for electrical power rather than addressing our responsibility to conserve it. 2) Socio-political: the impossibility of ensuring that, in an increasingly globalised energy market in which standards of safety and security diverge, the site's operation will always conform to those currently envisaged. The plant's scale and its intended importance to the national power supply means that any compromise to safety and security (whether through human error, the profit motive, terrorism or act of God) would have a commensurately enormous effect."

Ornella Saibene
"I object to Hinkley C . Local Traffic The people of Cannington will be subjected to construction traffic for 10 years. Vehicle movement every 40 seconds . EDF has underestimated the impact on people's lives and ignored villagers concerns: damage to houses, the noise and traffic congestion. 93% of local villagers do not want construction traffic. No compensation for this uprooting of rural life. Any accident at Hinkley point would make local evacuation impossible. Bridgwater suffers rush hour congestion as it is. Land contamination EDF's commissioned AMEC to take samples and make measurements of radioactivity at various locations on the proposed site for HinkleyC. Green Audit independently examined the data to see if there were any radiological safety issues. There is evidence of Enriched Uranium pollution on the land. (!) http://www.stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf Construction on this land would compromise the health of locals and workers . EDF has not taken this seriously, or the fact that its own data showed contamination, this is not just sloppy but criminal. The area is a designated as SPA , SCI, SSSI. The estuary itself is designated as a wetland of international importance. The trees and hedges are hundreds of years old and a haven for protected birds. Storage of fuel on site Nuclear waste to be stored on site, too hot to move. Fukushima Daiichi had 40 years worth of waste on site,this increased the magnitude of the accident. “There is no solution for nuclear waste” Jonathon Porritt Sustainable development committee. It remains radioactive for 100,000s of years. Future generations at risk. http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news.php/114/nuclear-remains-the-wrong-option http://www.sgr.org.uk/newsletters/NL36_nuclearwaste.pdf The cost of nuclear waste storage to the economy and consumer is unrealistic http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/consultation-financing-radioactive-waste-disposal-sgr-response Hinkley Point has the second largest tidal range in the world. Fukushima Daiichi plant had not been designed to withstand the tsunami wave that hit it. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_tragedy_led_to_fukushima_daiichi_nuclear_plant_tragedy http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/after-japanese-tsunami-industrial-society-resilience-and-nuclear-question Health Hinkley c will increase health problems. The KIKK study in Germany reported a 1.6 fold increase in cancers and 2.2fold increase in leukaemias among children living within 5km of all German nuclear power stations. Similarly Burnham on sea are up to 5 times the national average http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/pearson.htm http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_PR_COMARE14_critique.pdf Highly radioactive waste is known to leak, storage on site will increase risks to health http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/radioactive-waste-leaking-into/ Corruption of the democratic process. Collusion of government and press censorship of Fukushima http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima  http://www.ukace.org/publications/Executive%20Summary%20-%20Corruption%20of%20Governance.pdf Stop Hinkley have collected 12,750 signatures against HinkleyC Road signs that say Hinkley C are already up in the Bridgwater giving the impression to locals of a done deal. Minimum public consultation massive advertising campaign by EDF to promote Hinkley C. Local people have been lied to by EDF and the government: 1) Nuclear is the answer to climate change http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news.php/103/is-nuclear-the-answer 2) EDF is promising thousands of jobs the reality at flamanville is very different http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx6pcqdOa7Y 3)Nuclear is safe http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eBVQ3B-Jvrw 4)The land trashed by preliminary works can be restored. You cannot restore land http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-8SORM4dYG8 And this is Local to me: There is no evacuation plan for Bristol, baloons rleased at Hinkley took 1 hour to get to Bristol."

David Jesse
"It is wrong to be building more nuclear power stations and creating loads more nuclear waste."

Chris Cunningham
"To explore whether this is an appropriate development and to assist with suitable methodology."

Anthony E W Hobbs
"I wish to make three points for the IPC's consideration, viz:- 1) The design of the proposed Hinkley C generating station is new, and subject to ongoing revision. Similar nuclear power stations being built at present are experiencing significant modifications leading to delays to programme and cost over-runs. It is my opinion that Hinkley C as proposed should be deemed an "experimental prototype". Therefore it should not be considered appropriate for placement within this highly populated region of the UK. 2) In the event of a major release of radioactivity however caused, experience of Chernobyl and Fukoshima suggest that the whole of Somerset, and possibly even the city of Bristol will become an exclusion zone for at least 25 years. Causes may include human error (most likely), natural events (tsunamis are not unknown in the Severn Estuary), or terrorist activity : how is such a remote but devastating possibility to be evaluated by the IPC. Will this potential catastrophy be thought unlikely ever to occur, for until reactor designs become "fail-safe" the effects must surely be taken into account during any approval process. 3) It continues to be asserted that nuclear power generation produces few if any carbon emmissions. The same used to be said of wind and PV generation until "whole life cycle" calculations began to be taken into account. It now seems that offshore wind for example requires more energy and hence carbon emmission during the construction, grid connection, and maintenance phases than will be "saved" during the anticipated life of less than 25 years. It seems probable to me that the same kind of calculation for nuclear generation would yield similar negative results, particularly when fuel sourcing and reprocessing, waste management for many thousands of years, construction and decommissioning carbon emissions are taken into account. Can the IPC provide an answer to this query?"

Gerald D.R. Ambler
"I am in agreement that the station should be built, so that reliable supplies of electrical power are available, but the impacts on the local residents and the area as a whole must be carefully addressed. I suggest any residents living within, say, a 3 mile radius of the site should have the oppurtunity to move away, and their property bought at current market value, plus say 10%, by way of compensation. I think a new road access from the Motorway is essential, to avoid heavy traffic through Bridgwater, etc., and this would then have the benefit of forming the new Northern Bi-pass for Bridgwater."

M. Underwood
"I am wholly supportive of this nationally important infrastructure project. It is vital to the energy security of the future. I hope the new DCO process delivers a prompt consent."

Antony John Slade
"I concerned about the increase in traffic both in Cannington and coming through Bridgwater. In my view the current roads are not of sufficient standard to accommodate the increase in traffic both during construction and operation of HPC. The significant increase in heavy traffic during the construction of the proposed Cannington western by-pass and build HPC build phases will be a blight on the Cannington village in terms of access, noise, increased pollution and disruption during road related incidents. The A 39 between Bridgwater and Cannington is already often closed through accidents. As a keen cyclist I am already fearful for my safety around 'Sandford corner' and along the 'straight'. How is the increasing traffic going to encourage more people to cycle? The Govt has initiatives to increase cycling and walking to promote healthy living. The A39 without significant improvements or a by-pass would not promote increase in these activities. Whilst some large items are likely to come to the site by sea, there will definitely be a major increase in traffic, which will only partly be alleviated by a western by-pass. Why can't we invest more in a new River Parrett crossing at Dunball or near the Express park? Whilst expensive this could serve the HPC site and provide good access for any further expansion at Hinkley e.g. Hinkley D. I am a also concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants. I understand that similar design EDF nuclear constructions are already behind in France and Finland due to design safety concerns. These knock-on effect of these delays is that both plants are massively behind and over budget. Even more reason to build a new Parrett crossing or a new road from the M5 round Bridgwater and Cannington because the construction disruption will go on a lot longer that EDF say. People not working in the nuclear industry will not get the benefit of long-term jobs because much of the area's income relies on tourism. I believe that tourism income will decrease once the disruption really hits."

Natasha Alexander
"The development and extra traffic it would bring would create even more travel problems on the A39 and villages in surrounding areas. The A39 is prone to heavy traffic, particularly from Easter until September each year, with commuters and holiday traffic too. It is a road not capable of handling the current levels of traffic, and is prone to accidents which increase problems further. Increasing traffic levels will also cause disruption, frustration and longer commuting times for local residents of the surrounding areas. In my experience of driving through the back roads from Nether Stowey across the hills to Taunton every day for over 10 years, drivers either venture into the back lanes of their own accord to navigate around blocked roads, or are diverted by police. When this happens, these same drivers end up causing problems by grid-locking the back roads (by what I can only assume is inexperience driving through narrow lanes, especially in poor weather conditions). None of the minor roads in the area are suitable to carry increased levels of traffic flow (including the Stogursey to Nether Stowey road). Another point is that Bridgwater is not equipped to deal with increased traffic, seems to really struggle with traffic heading through in all directions, and is gridlocked on a daily basis. This will only become worse if the development goes ahead as planned, with queues of traffic gridlocked in all directions for greater periods of time. Also, taking into account that there are frequent accidents on the M5 between junctions 23, 24 & 25, people divert on to the A38 / A39 en masse to get through North Petherton / Bridgwater and around the motorway blockage. When this happens it frequently brings traffic to a standstill and increases journey times substantially. I have frequently experienced situations where traffic is gridlocked all the way out of Bridgwater and for some miles along the main artery roads. This is sure to become far worse if developments go ahead, and I have grave concerns that potential road development / improvement schemes are near-sighted and could actually make little difference or increase problems further (I refer to other areas where I have already witnessed this to be the case)."

Andrew Mallinson
"I strogly objetc to the construction of Hinkley C power station for the following reasons - The effects of construction traffic will be damaging to the local communities and tourism will grind to a halt. No by-pass is planned until too late and with lorries moving earth every 2 minutes this is not acceptable. the effects on the landscape and the natural environments in the areas of construction will be extremely damaging to wildlife and irreversible. the lack of economic benefit to the local community is also very worrying as all skilled personnel will be "imported" from other cities and where are all these people going to live exactly? there will be a bad effect on local services with a large influx of workers and then what will happen after they all leave the area after construction is complete? There is a distinct lack of Emergency planning in the current proposal. how could Minehead, Exmoor and taunton residents all be evacuated from the 30km radius exclusion zone ? All down the A39 ! I don't believe this is possible. safety at Fukashima, japan has been showed to be a problem which has not been addressed in the current proposal. EDF is not financially sound and already 34 billion in debt. they are already 4 years behind in constructing another plant in France. How can another plant at Hinkley be achievable with the Euro facing collapse?"

Sharan Eve
"It would appear to myself, as a non expert in such matters, from the planning of the new Nuclear build by EDF that they are playing "mind games" and utterly confusing both the local residents of the area surrounding Hinkley, Somerset and creating a lot more aggravation and work for the local councils involved. My particular and very relevant concern is the increased traffic that has already commenced and is due to become heavier as the works for Hinkely C begin. Traffic in the local town of Bridgwater is currently not good during peak times and is set to be grid locked in 2015 on the current road structure, so not only will this town be dramatically affected by the huge increase in traffic, either via the northern distributor road or via the A38 from M5 junction 24, but also it would appear that around 2,000 vehicles will be expected to use the C182 which is the road from Cannington to Hinkley and which I live immediately adjacent. From a very personal aspect I moved to   from a town to enjoy the QUIET rural life and already we are suffering an increase in traffic and this is only the beginning. If the estimated 2,000 vehicles per day on the main road to Hinkley is correct then it will be like living next to a motorway, which I did not choose and would never wish to choose! There is also a huge implication on safety – the speed that people travel along the Hinkley road is ridiculous (I have a photo of a smashed car from last year, driver unknown). I had a dog killed on an early Sunday morning on 1 May 2011 due to an unknown person driving too fast. The current construction lorries are depositing mud so when the roads are wet, our vehicles are hit with a muddy wall of spray from large vehicles – what about pedestrians and horseriders who use this road? Does anyone consider the number of farmers who use this road to carry out their business in their agricultural machines and their farm animals? I do not understand why the materials and labour cannot be shipped in via the River Seven estuary in order to reduce the impact on the local road structure of an area not built or planned for such a huge project. A direct route could be off M5 junction 23 to Dunball Wear and then by ship from the wharf off the River Parrett to Hinkley (new) wharf, surely? When the project is completed will EDF insist their workers car share or will EDF provide park and ride? The current Hinkley workers generally travel one person per vehicle so it is on average 50 cars going past each shift. Do I have to continue being woken up early each morning listening to the Hinkley workers going past?"

Geoff Collard
"I believe that nuclear power is fundamentally unsafe, and the risk to myself and my family who live in Bristol from a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset will not only add to our feeling of insecurity, but will also be an unacceptable radiation danger to us should an accident occur such as happened at Fukushima in Japan last year. The risk also of terrorist attack cannot be discounted. There is also evidence that cancer clusters occur near nuclear power plants due to leakage. I oppose the application on grounds of safety"

Maurice Holding
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO ALL ASPECTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT IS NOT WANTED, NOT NEEDED AND NOT REQUIRED, THE MAIN POINTS ARE As far as I can see it is not doing anything for our local enviroment just subsidising LONDON. The community will be affected by the visual impact and noise of this plant. FINANCIAL Fines for insufficient rubbish, plus any changes in landfill tax for ash would be passed on to Councils RECYCLING Recycling rates would decline in order for Councils to be able to feed the plant. INCINERATION GOES AGAINST THE WASTE HIERARCHY. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle; GLOBAL WARMING Decreasing recycling would have a negative affect on global warming. EMISSIONS Dangerous chemicals and small particles coming out of the chimney are well known health risks, Dioxins are known to cause cancer and other health problems such as birth defects. ACCUMULATIVE AFFECT OF EMMISIONS . HEALTH there are serious inadequacies in the present monitoring system. In 2009 the Health Protection Agency admitted that they had not commissioned research to measure the impacts on health downwind of incinerators. The Environment Agency has admitted that emissions standards are based on what can be measured and what is technically achievable, rather than what is safe, and that 'the health effects which result from an incinerator’s emission are not yet fully known.' TRANSPORTATION There would be an increased number of vehicles on the road, adding congestion and emissions to our lovely countryside which I am led to believe will be FULL of rotten steel pylons instead of underground methods which WILL ruin our countryside for EVER . MINEHEAD AND SURROUNDING TOWNS SHOULD NOT TO BE SACRIFICED TOWNS, Exmoor and the surrounding towns do not need to be heavily polluted, and have one of the worst health and mortality/morbidity figures in the UK, they should not be sacrificed for this incinerator to add more bad health. And as the SIZE The plant is far too big for the area, when contracts are signed and if Councils cannot get enough rubbish to feed this plant that the Councils (tax payer) will still have to pay or be funded,after all this we are a holiday area for the South West that does not need another rotten eyesore and upheaval to burden our already existing overpriced COUNCIL TAX just to subsidise LONDON which is where the power will be used. EDF's track record does not inspire confidence as they are Millions of EURO'S in debt already and well behind schedule in FLAMANVILLE in France and OLKILUOTO in Finland"

Sheila Holding
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO ALL ASPECTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT IS NOT WANTED, NOT NEEDED AND NOT REQUIRED, THE MAIN POINTS ARE As far as I can see it is not doing anything for our local enviroment just subsidising LONDON. The community will be affected by the visual impact and noise of this plant. FINANCIAL Fines for insufficient rubbish, plus any changes in landfill tax for ash would be passed on to Councils RECYCLING Recycling rates would decline in order for Councils to be able to feed the plant. INCINERATION GOES AGAINST THE WASTE HIERARCHY. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle; GLOBAL WARMING Decreasing recycling would have a negative affect on global warming. EMISSIONS Dangerous chemicals and small particles coming out of the chimney are well known health risks, Dioxins are known to cause cancer and other health problems such as birth defects. ACCUMULATIVE AFFECT OF EMMISIONS . HEALTH there are serious inadequacies in the present monitoring system. In 2009 the Health Protection Agency admitted that they had not commissioned research to measure the impacts on health downwind of incinerators. The Environment Agency has admitted that emissions standards are based on what can be measured and what is technically achievable, rather than what is safe, and that 'the health effects which result from an incinerator’s emission are not yet fully known.' TRANSPORTATION There would be an increased number of vehicles on the road, adding congestion and emissions to our lovely countryside which I am led to believe will be FULL of rotten steel pylons instead of underground methods which WILL ruin our countryside for EVER . MINEHEAD AND SURROUNDING TOWNS SHOULD NOT TO BE SACRIFICED TOWNS, Exmoor and the surrounding towns do not need to be heavily polluted, and have one of the worst health and mortality/morbidity figures in the UK, they should not be sacrificed for this incinerator to add more bad health. And as the SIZE The plant is far too big for the area, when contracts are signed and if Councils cannot get enough rubbish to feed this plant that the Councils (tax payer) will still have to pay or be funded,after all this we are a holiday area for the South West that does not need another rotten eyesore and upheaval to burden our already existing overpriced COUNCIL TAX just to subsidise LONDON which is where the power will be used. EDF's track record does not inspire confidence as they are Millions of EURO'S in debt already and well behind schedule in FLAMANVILLE in France and OLKILUOTO in Finland"

Pippa Lucas
"I disagree with this project wholeheartedly. The long term consequences of this project will affect the local communities in a negative way. The local villages and countryside need to be protected from this development which will have a negative impact on recreational facilities including public access to the countryside; trees and hedgerows and the wildlife that live within the area and the river. These areas of proposed construction should be available to the local communities to develop as a community resource or in relation to the countryside gate keep and care for. Local residents need their concerns and issues fully represented and this includes looking at alternative and ecological energy sources rather than one that has the potential to devastate the natural beauty of the area and in case of possible nuclear accidents devastate local communities."

Ian Tucker
"I am not anti nuclear, however safety must come first. EDF's submission does not take proper account of the heavy traffic in and around Bridgwater. EDF's plans for road junction improvements will do little to ease the regular hold ups experienced in the area at present. In the event of an accident at the power station, accessability to and from the site to achieve emergency vehicle access and posible evacuation will be very hard to achieve due to conjestion on the roads which is now experienced with out this developement. A northern bypass around Bridgwater from the M5 to the new station should be built before the developement is allowed to proceed."

Alison Jarah
"As a resident of the local area I am seriously concerned about the effect of this large industrial development on an extremely rural area. The provision of accommodation in 15 'dormitory towers' outside Cannington with only minimal sports facilities for entertainment will change the character of the village. The quiet roads which are now safe for walking and cycling will become dangerous as there has been no provision for significant alternative routes to Hinkley Point. Workers are expected to commute into the area and those who choose to live to the South will inevitably pass through the country lanes on their way to and from the M5. In summary the infrastrucure, be it health care, entertainment facilities or adequate highway provision has not been sufficiently addressed. If these measures are to suffer 'economies' what faith should we have that stringent ( and no doubt expensive) safety measures will be adhered to?"

Mrs Julie Jones on behalf of Laura Carpenter
"I am young and disabled and use a wheelchair I also live on the ground floor next to the dual carriageway of which ALL EDF traffic will flow. There has been no provision of a safe crossing for the residents of Dunball through this mass of traffic.I will be trapped in my home. It is my human right to be able to leave my home and be able to get safely across the road. I will not be able to use the bus services and taxis will refuse to come and collect me due to the volume of traffic that already backs up along this dual carrageway. Dunball will suffer every bit of traffic to and from EDF and they have not mitgated us.Why have other areas been offered double glazing and I am feet from the main traffic route on the ground floor and will never be able to sleep again. *Road infastructure has not been adaquately provided for the amount of traffic generated Bridgwater will not be accessable. * Local mitigations to allow basic access for people have not been provided for the residents of Dunball. *Sound proofing such as double glazing has not been offered the Dunball even though they will face the full brunt of traffic within feet of bedrooms. * Inclusive crossings have not been provided for Dunball. A crossing in the plans at Downend will not help residents in Dunball. * Dunball will become an island homes that all the planners never considered a roundabout for traffic and hell for those that have to live in the polution and entrapment that the traffic will bring. * Does anyone care? its only a few houses,children, elderly , disabled ...EDF is huge a money bringer to the UK ? people dont matter anymore. But please safety and lives deserve looking after a safe crossing is all we asked for and we cant afford to move. Please help us. Laura."

Mary Morgan
"1. Increased traffic Streams of lorries are already coming into the village, many not observing the speed limit. The road is not wide and cannot be widened in the centre of the village to allow these huge lorries two way passage. There is also the safety of Bridgwater College students to consider and the preservation of our War Memorial. The A39 is not an adequate route. Tragically, there have been many fatalities on this road and the road has been closed for hours with only unclassified roads to be used instead. My main interest is the route linking Cannington to Bridgwater, but the same can be said of Cannington to Williton. 2. Before any works takes place, there must be a bypass. The proposed bypass ignores the fact that the A39 is a dangerous route and that Bridgwater roads cannot take anymore traffic. The town is a well-known bottleneck. The proposed road 'improvements' are just a 'plaster' instead of a proper operation (a bypass around Bridgwater from jct 23). 3. Park and Ride at Cannington I am very concerned about the light and noise pollution from this proposed site. It will also generate more traffic in the area. 4. Withiel Drive Withiel Drive should remain a non-through road. It is only wide enough for one car and is not suitable for 2 way traffic. 5. Landscaping The proposed building works should retain mature trees and put in bunding, trees and hedging instead of huge walls to retain the natural landscape. 6. Hinkley C will be around for years to come. Whatever is decided, it will have a huge impact on the quality and way of life for all the surrounding towns and villages. Plans should be made to preserve the beautiful landscape and important architectural features. The plans should be forward thinking and consider the huge increase in traffic and population."

John Richard Bates
"I am concerned that the proposals submitted by EDF to alleviate traffic congestion ib Bridgwater to be caused during the construction phase of the project, are totally inadequate. Considerable traffic congestion already takes place during peak periods on the A38 & A39 roads through the town. The proposals to manage construction traffic by EDF fail, in my opinion to fully address these important issues. The A39 between Bridgwater and Cannington, is particularly prone to Road Traffic Accidents, which the impact of which can only be increased by the heavy construction traffic, proposed."

Patricia Hubbleday
"I do not believe that this power station is likely to deliver any economic benefit. Nuclear power has failed to deliver the cheap electricity it promised. Furthermore the cost of a possible nuclear accident would be horrendous. There is also the cost of the infrastructure that needs to be provided, and the cost of disposing of nuclear waste in the future. There is also the potential adverse effect of a development of this nature on the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve, and the potential loss of tourist income to the area due to this blight on our landscape. Somerset is an area rich in potential for safe, clean, sustainable forms of electricity generation such as wind, wave and solar-power. These options have not been adequately explored in Somerset (although they have been successful elsewhere) and the technology is continually improving. A new nuclear power station is the wrong choice for the future."

Jason Gunningham
"EDF ENERGY 'Hinkley Point C: Proposed changes to the Preferred Proposals including M5 Junction 24 & Highway Improvements in the Bridgwater Area' consultation: W ROAD 2 D - Quantock Roundabout: 21 Quantock Way TA6 7JZ. I am writing and completing this application of interest in response to the EDF letter sent to me on 09/12/11; 'EDF Energy DCO Application for Hinckley point '. On drawings and information sent to me by EDF on 02/07/11 proposed works indicated that actual land on my property would be acquired by CPO. Supplied drawings within the correspondance DO NOT match the boundaries of my property laid out and detailed in H.M. Land Registry Deeds for my property. I have responded to this letter by informing both the enquiries team at EDF in Kings Square, Bridgwater (face to face and via email) and Savills (solicitors acting for EDF in this matter - via email also), but no response has been forthcoming to this date. If a CPO is to be deemed necessary for my property / land then obviously various Heads of Claim are required and will need be investigated and negotiated, but as to date no time-lines/negotiations/assurances have been given by EDF. I am therefore registering my interest in the above proposal. Regards, Mr J. Gunningham.                "

Ian Forster
"I object to the building of the power station because of the time consumed to build the power station which will take at least 10 years to build when if renewable energy sources were used we could have it up and running in a year. The pollution that is caused by such an infrastructure is unequal to anything we have or propose to have in the future. It is not even carbon free. Building the power station where it is proposed is another disaster waiting to happen. In the 17th century a tsunami came up the Bristol channel and there was also an earthquake in the Glastonbury area in the 13th Century. Ironically, due to increased knowledge and awareness of climate change and global warming, some environmentalists are once again advocating the use of nuclear power as an environmentally friendly option, as less CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere (one of the main culprits of global warming). The main arguments against nuclear power, however, are still the same: Accidents – the threat of nuclear melt down is very real, as was proved by Chernobyl, and the consequent release of massive quantities of radioactivity Waste disposal – one unsavory bi-product of nuclear power is the large amount of radioactive waste, dangerous for thousands of years. Scientists are still working on safe ways to dispose of this dangerous waste, but no luck yet Weapons of mass destruction – the expertise and facilities needed to produce nuclear power can be easily adapted for the production of nuclear weapons Terrorism – nuclear power plants make great big, immovable targets for terrorists and other criminals Mining – Uranium mining is renowned to be dirty, and there is even danger of contamination whilst transporting the uranium to the power plant Alternatives – there are safer, cleaner alternatives to nuclear power. Wind turbines, Solar power, Wave turbines to name a few. Although the cost of setting up these safer alternatives may be prohibitive, in the long run who wouldn’t agree that it’s a small price to pay for a safer, cleaner world?"

Helen Gillam
"I am concerned about the following issues: Impact of chronic low level radiation exposure on health and the local ecology including that of South & West Wales is being ignored. Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in estuaries, e.g Bridgwater Bay mudflats, estuaries and mudflats in South & West Wales. Monitoring and reporting of radioactive discharges is unacceptable Local Health issues, ie an increased risk of leukemia has been found around nuclear installations in UK & Europe. The evidence from Fukushima shows that the pathways for radionuclides to appear in the food chain and be consumed by the human population are clearly poorly understood The storage of waste & spent fuel was a major contributor to the problems at Fukushima and release of radiation into the environment. At Hinkley the storage area ponds not designed yet. Hinkley only has a 7 year storage capacity? High level Waste Storage facility, we have not had that before at Hinkley. Cooling of Spent Waste how will this be done? The Evacuation Plans are clearly inadequate in the light of Fukushima Evacuation plans in the event of any catastrophe doesn't appear to be in the EDF application. If there is an emergency on site, trying to get out on one road. If B station has an accident while C is being built EDF doesn't have evacuation procedure for the workers."

Charles Graham BSc Hons
"There are a number of flaws in the proposal and I urge the IPC to recommend refusal of permission for a Development Consent Order. There is a Lack of Democracy and Adequate Consultation Process, even today, there is NO reference or link on the EdF Community Forum web site to engaging in the IPC process: http://hinkleypoint.edfenergyconsultation.info/public-consultation/community-forum/ Further, the length and detail of the project application requires considerably more time for a more considered and detailed response from individuals and organisations than the IPC has currently allowed for. The several tens of thousands of pages make it impossible to competently consider all aspects of this application within the time-scale permitted. There is no representation of future generational interests, upon who, most of the cost and waste will be imposed. The project requires the site secured for a minimum 160 years as a highly radioactive waste repository, nearly three times as long as the site is proposed to generate electricity, therefore the promotion of the project as a power station, misrepresents its significantly greater role as a waste repository site, as it should correctly be entitled. The political constraints on matters available for and the means of discussing this application render further the belief of political and institutional lawlessness, contrary to decent morality, proper scientific evaluation and the reasonable application of common sense. The IPC requires to have Regard to local impact reports and other matters considered relevant and important. The project does not fully meet with the required National, regional and local benefits (environmental, social and economic). National, regional and local benefits (environmental, social and economic) do not out-weigh the disadvantages. Adverse impacts need be considered, longer term and cumulative impacts are not neutralised by the proposed mitigation. As the adverse impacts (after mitigation) outweigh the benefits, consent should be refused. Further extended submission will show that the proposed application fails to meet with the required thresholds involving: • Good design • Air Emissions – the impact on the health of ecosystems and Air Quality Management Areas. • Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – particular consideration of impacts on designated ecology sites and mitigation. • Coastal Change – resilience to coastal change, taking account of climate change, impacts on marine biodiversity and designated areas of conservation. • Nuisance from Noise, Odour, Dust, Light, Smoke etc – impacts on amenity must be considered. • Flood Risk – Flood Risk Assessment is required. Development in a flood risk area must be designed to remain operational if floods occur. • Landscape and Visual Impacts – the character and value of landscapes, especially National Parks and AONBs. • Land Use – impacts on high quality agricultural land, Green Belt (England) and Green Wedges (Wales), coastal recreation sites, open space and sports facilities. • Social and Economic Impacts - positive and negative impacts will be considered. • Traffic and Transport – mitigation of impacts will be required. • Waste Management – requires effective management of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. • Water Quality and Resources – have regard to the Water Framework Directive"

Bill McDonald
"The current road infrastructure in and around Bridgwater is totally inadequate for the projected volumes of additional traffic which will be generated by the Hinkley Point project, and there is likely to be serious traffic congestion on a regular and continuing basis in the area because of this. A new road to serve the site must be built before work starts. (This very point was made at the public enquiry into the building of the present reactors at Hinkley). Tourism is a major economic activity in this area and will be seriously affected if it becomes known that traffic congestion is a problem in this part of Somerset. In the event of a major incident the emergency services could be severely hampered in accessing the site if the only access were by the existing roads."

Susan Lilienthal
"I object to this proposal. Hinkley C is far too large a building project for our rural community. ROADS- The roads through Bridgwater are already at capacity and EDF plans are completely inadequate. In fact there are no plans that could alleviate the congestion that would be caused by a project of this size. TOURISM INDUSTRY- I have been running a bed and breakfast business in the Quantock Hills for the past twenty years. Hinkley C will negatively affect our business as well as others in the tourist industry. Already, we have guests who arrive to our accommodation having driven through grid-locked Bridgwater. This situation will only get worse and our businesses will likewise suffer. In addition, there is the scale of damage to the beautiful rural West Somerset landscape- a complete blight on the landscape. CONSULTATION PROCESS- This has been a complete shambles. It has been a total "disparity of arms" with the local community under siege by EDF. The media waves have been filled with propaganda and bribery by a multi-national company that has spared no expense on its marketing. Conversely, the information presented for the community's response has been confused and skewed. In my opinion, the majority of the community do not support this proposal, but feel helpless under the barrage of promises and publicity put out by EDF (and the government). the vast majority do not want Hinkley C to go through but feel it is beyond their control. For this reason the IPC should reject the propsal until a fair consultation is undertaken in regards: 1. the true opinion of the local community 2. the actual NEED for nuclear power according to the NPS> When the consultation process is fairly undertaken on both these points, then perhaps the IPC could reconsider."

Maureen Collin
"I believe that a direct route from junction 23 of the M5 is the only route which should be considered, as to bring so much extra traffic through Bridgwater along the A39 and through Cannington is wrong. If there is an accident on this stretch of th A39, local people cannot get in or out without a lot of extra mileage along country lanes, which makes us late for work or other appoinments. Also a direct route would be quicker for traffic to get to Hinkley Point which must be much more environmentally friendly."

Kendal B Axon
"I grew up in Minehead but left for employment as a physicist in nuclear fusion research, and so have a lifelong interest in the production of energy, particularly in the South West. I now live on the sea front in Minehead and can see Hinkley in a direct line of sight. I believe we need to maintain the ability to generate a steady reliable base load of electricity with minimum carbon generation, and this is only available using new nuclear power stations. Other “green” alternatives are useful in the mixed economy of production but are unreliable for continuous steady output and will require considerable investment and constant management of the electrical distribution infrastructure. We need to accept a high degree of disruption during the construction phase for the benefit of the future. This is a challenge to manage, rather than an excuse to prevent this project. I feel apprehensive that too many people are increasing the initial costs which may delay, or even stop the project. A distinction needs to be drawn between residents who have main concerns about the construction phase, rather than the nuclear power station itself. Although the safety record of nuclear energy in the UK is in the main good, my concern is that in the operating phase, both internal and external radiation monitoring is comprehensive and that part is monitored by an independent agency to ensure that open early warning of any mishap is publically available. In the light of anticipated rising sea levels, how much thought is given to sea levels in 60 or even 80 years near the end of the decommissioning phase, and for the subsequent storage any radioactive waste?"

Matravers Plant Hire
"In short West Somerset needs Hinkley C for jobs for the local workforce for the initial build and for the long term after completion. Local infrastructure should benefit from the new station due to investment from EDF eg Washford Cross road junction a notorious accident blackspot. According to local press EDF plan to improve this junction amoungst other plans. The station needs to be built because the old generation of reactors across the country are the end of their useful lives which, if left unadressed would lead to an energy short fall. The other forms of energy generation would not be able to fill the gap left by nuclear power. West Somerset needs Hinkley C."

Brian Keane
"The massive affect on village & rural life that the Additional heavy vehicle traffic bringing people, supplies, equipment, materials etc. to & from the site on an existing inadequete road system, plus in addition the workforce of people who will have to be brought into the surrounding areas will also have their own vehicles which will add to the congestion. All this traffic tunnelling through Bridgwater (already a traffic blackspot) and then bottlenecking at Cannington to then flood onto minor country lanes to Hinkley. This at a time when the existing local councils are under severe financial pressure and facing cutbacks to all their major services ie/ nhs, policing, etc."

Mrs Dodden
"Having lived in the area all our lives, we can see that the disruption on the roads that the construction of Hinkley C will bring will be enormous, we commute into Bridgwater daily and it seems we will see massive disruption with no personal gain. The A39 between Cannington and Bridgwater is a dangerous road with a history of severe accidents some witnessed by ourselves. We have three young children and the thought of them riding their bikes into Bridgwater with the massive increase in traffic due to Hinkley C is awful. There is no room to overtake and in the event of an accident there is no alternative route, this is before the addition of the lorry’s and heavy loads on route to Hinkley C. If you take into account the summer traffic load on the A39 you are looking a traffic chaos. If there is no intention of building a northern bypass from Junction 23 then at least the A39 between Cannington and Bridgwater should be widened maybe include a cycle lane, especially with edf encouraging more and more of their staff at Hinkley Point to ride their bikes to work rather than drive. The current application includes a Cannington Bypass, living on Sandy Lane we will be directly affected by this road as the bypass will cut straight across the top of Sandy Lane. There is no mention in the proposal of any Pelican crossing connecting the top of Sandy Lane to the footpath that will join into Chads Hill. We currently drive up Sandy Lane and down Chads hill daily to access the local primary school and village amenities as our children get older we will encourage them riding into school and the village but without a crossing at the top of Sandy Lane our children will be confronted with crossing a busy industrial road to get to a bus stop in the village. In addition to this Sandy Lane forms the access to many country walks including historical monuments such as Cannington Park with horse treks frequenting the area. Therefore a clear provision needs to be made to show safe pedestrian access to the lane from the heart of the village of Cannington. We would also like details confirmed about access in and out of Sandy Lane throughout construction and on completion. It needs to be confirmed that our access in and out of the lane will continue as normal. Again, it is worth re-iterating that although we understand the need for nuclear power there is literally no personal benefit to ourselves and we personally feel that the failure to put a Northern Bypass in is actually going to put lives at risk."

Richard Ince
"I would like to register my opposition to the development of the Hinkley C Project. I base this decision principally on the inadequate consultation process that has been undertaken by the developer and the local authorities. I feel the community has not been properly informed and is not prepared to make a well educated submission to the IPC or local planning officials. Furthermore, the Hinkley C Project is very much out of scale with the local environment. Hinkley C also adds additional built infrastructure to an existing large development. The new development will negatively impact the area in terms of the proposed size. The Project will use important green space on the north Somerset coast which is adjacent to an AONB - a unique and precious resource for the region. Aesthetically, the proposed facility will dominate the landscape, especially views from the Quantock Hills towards the north. Additionally, employment promised through the development of the Project will by and large be for individuals from out of the area and will not benefit local people and their employment needs. I am also concerned about the impact of the project on regional traffic volumes, both during the construction phase, and after completion. There is also the impact already being felt in availability of local housing proposed to be used for construction workers, which even in the best of times is very scarse and expensive. Finally, I feel this energy project is very much out of context with the need for community and district based power generation to address future sustainable production. Thank you for the opportunity to state my views."

Wendy Stother
"Consideration to road access to and from the site, together with the impact of additional volume of traffic, has not been adequately addressed. The statutory authorities are unable to understand the forecastes and studies undertaken by EDF. Most critically EDF have not undertaken an adequate study of a dedicated road that takes the additional traffic away from Bridgwater and local towns and communities and away from the already conjested A38 and A39. Many requests for such a study have in reality been ignored. The Cannington Park and Ride proposes access along the already conjested A38 & A39. Disturbance from noise, vibration and light pollution will have an unacceptable impact on the quality of life of nearby residents. Requests to use acoustic fencing and appropriate lighting have been ignored by EDF. Not only is a bus depot proposed on this site but also a shift pattern is proposed that will involve traffic movement, outside of acceptable hours and will have a negative impact on residents living alongside the proposed route including me."

Combwich Motor Boat and Sailing Club
"The Combwich Motor Boat and Sailing Club (CMB&SC) are at present tenants of a piece of land adjacent to the wharf and laboratory in Combwich. We have three issues that we would like addressed, in brief they are: 1) Access to the boat yard during the alterations to the wharf. 2) Access to the harbour and river during these alterations. 3) The monopoly of EDF's use of high tides during the construction of the power station."

Reg Wilkes
"I am concerned that my access to the harbour will be restricted during the alterations to the wharf and the subsequent construction of the power station. The general public have enjoyed free access to the slipway in the village for many years."

Sue Francis
"Why build a freight laydown facility on the flood plain when there are other sites available including at the main construction site. Why does EDF need a road haulage laydown facility at Combwich which will add vehicle movements and be immensely costly to build and disruptive to the local community? I have lived in Combwich for 13 years and it has always been a peaceful village to live in. I am concerned about the loss of tranquillity and the impact of noise, vibration and lighting. Time limits should be set for working hours to limit any disturbance. The amount of traffic that will use the C182 (Hinkley Road) and the impact on the junctions to Combwich and Otterhampton. The difficulty of getting through Cannington before the by-pass is built and the horrendous impact on Bridgwater without a northern by-pass. Over 1,000 vehicles a day will pass the end of the village each way to and from Hinkley Point (a total of over 2000 vehicle movements a day) according to EDF’s own figures."

Kathleen Down
"I am concerned on the potential efftect on local transport, congestion , damage to roads, and risk of accidents leading to pollution, harm to people and radioactivity entering into food chain on local produce ."

Robert Birkenhead
"Storage of AILs delivered to Combwich Instead of raising the level of the land to the south of Combwich by 1 metre involving thousands of heavy lorries, EDF should consider the use of land at Cannington Quarry if they really need somewhere to store heavy loads. The Quarry is above the flood plain and has 2 roads to it including one which will be from the new bypass. Road junctions to villages off the C182 The junctions to Combwich and Otterhampton need to have traffic calming measures such as speed limits or yellow grids. Otterhampton junction needs altering to improve visibility and and also needs proper signage, this junction is already dangerous and will become more so as traffic increases due to Hinkley Point C. Broadband speed and Mobile phone reception The broadband speed is very low especially in the Stockland and Steart areas. Mobile phone reception is very patchy in the Combwich area. These issues could be addressed by EDF as compensation for the inconvenience of having a large construction project on our doorstep."

K Down on behalf of Roy Down
"Concerned on overlaod on roads, threat to health in event of accident, workers pushing up prices of local housing so locals can not afford, damage to environment and wild life - somerset becomiong a dumping ground for any project other regions reject"

LOW LEVEL RADIATION AND HEALTH CONFERENCE
"Radioactivity in the environment Health Effects Near Nuclear Power Stations (NPSs): Nuclear power reactors routinely release radioactive gases to air and radioactive liquids to water. When reactors are depressurized prior to refuelling, larger gaseous emissions occur over short time periods. The annual magnitudes (European Commission, 2005) of these emissions and discharges are large in comparison and the main radioactive releases are tritium (hydrogen-3, half-life of ~12 years), carbon-14 (5,700 years), krypton-85 (11 years), argon-41 (1.8 hours), and various iodine isotopes including iodine-129 (16 million years). Worldwide epidemiological evidence clearly indicates increased child leukaemias near NPSs including the UK. However, here, official estimated doses from released nuclides were too low, by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude, to explain the increased leukaemias according to the current risk estimate model. This risk model has been under review in the Non-Targeted Effects (NOTE) Workshop. Recent epidemiological studies have reopened the child leukaemia debate. In 2007, Baker and Hoel (2007) carried out a meta-analysis of 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France, US, Germany, Japan and Spain and found cancer death rates for children were elevated by 5-24% depending on proximity to nuclear facilities. Hoffmann et al, (2007) found 14 leukaemia cases between 1990 and 2005 in children living within 5 km of the Krümmel nuclear plant in Germany, significantly exceeding the 0.45 predicted cases. In 2008, Laurier et al. (2008) reviewed research at 198 nuclear sites in 10 countries, including 25 major multisite studies. They found that increased risks of childhood leukaemia near nuclear installations were a recurrent issue. The authors, employees of the French government’s Institut de Radioprotection et Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), confirmed that clusters of childhood leukaemia cases existed locally, but they refrained from generalising their findings. Most important is the KiKK study (Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken = Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants) Spix et al, (2008) and Kaatsch et al, (2008). It found a 60% increase in solid cancer risk and a 120% increase in leukaemia risk among children under 5 living within 5 km of all German nuclear reactors. The KiKK findings are significant because it is a large well-conducted study; it is scientifically rigorous; its evidence is very strong; and the German Government, which had commissioned the study, has confirmed its findings. The study provides strong evidence that iving near nuclear reactors carries grave health risks for babies and children – more than doubling their risk of developing leukaemia. In January 2012, a study of childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of French nuclear power stations found a possible excess risk of AL in the close vicinity of French NPPs in 2002-2007. Overall, the findings call for investigation for potential risk factors related to the vicinity of NPP, and collaborative analysis of multisite studies conducted in various countries. There is local experience of public health damage in Somerset. See Study (Bowie, 1988). Hinkley Point is not the right site, as its would have serious impacts regarding habitats, species and its ecology."

Sally-Ann Howes
"As a resident of Withiel Drive I am concerned about the proposed Cannington bypass that will pass very close by my home and, if approved will, impact on the saleability and value of my home as well as destroying the local rural environment. EDF haven't made any mention of compensation to me and it would be difficult to sell now that any search would highlight that a road is likely to be cut across the nearby green belt land. In addition the route from the M5 to the proposed bypass along the A39 is totally unsuitable for the amount of proposed traffic. Recent accidents have totally gridlocked the area for hours. An alternative route direct from the M5 should definitely be considered."

Joanne Baker
"1. Construction Traffic The huge volumes of construction traffic will greatly affect the lives of local people over the next decade and many do not feel that they have been properly consulted by EDF. Should there be an accident at the site, traffic would block emergency vehicles and evacuation. 2. Land Status The land is a designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) and site of Community Importance. The wetland is of international importance. The building of Hinkley C would destroy a large area of land including ancient woodland. 3. Pollution Land already containing enriched uranium would be further polluted. Radioactive liquid discharges have not been properly addressed by EDF nor has the possibility of flooding due to freak weather conditions. Highly radioactive waste will be stored on site for generations and neither the government nor EDF can guarantee that no disaster of will occur over that period. 4.Health Low level radiation is emitted by nuclear power stations has been proved to be dangerous to young children. Regular controlled and uncontrolled venting of radioactive particles will put the local population at risk. In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. Cancer rates in Burnham on Sea are up to five times higher than the national average. Hinkley C will add to the dangers to public health. A recent study by the French Institute of Health and Medical Research has found a leukaemia rate twice as high among children under the age of 15 living within a 3.1-mile radius of France's 19 nuclear power plants. 5. Local Jobs EDF says several thousand people will be employed constructing Hinkley C but the experience in Flamanville shows that EDF use subcontractors to import foreign workers. These are vulnerable to exploitation and EDF is being accused by French Unions of modern day slavery. 6. Democracy The EDF consultations were not widely publicised. The last government deliberately ignored the advice of its own Sustainable Development Commission that nuclear power was financially and environmentally unsustainable. Local Authorities and citizens living outside of the 15 kilometre zone are given no voice. This arbitrary distance takes no account of the fact that any radiation plume created by a major accident would follow the wind speed and direction. Balloons released at the Hinkley Point in October reached Bristol within the hour and travelled on to Swindon and Milton Keynes. Surely radioactive particles could do the same!"

Trevor Howes
"As a resident of Withiel Drive I am concerned about the proposed Cannington bypass that will pass very close by my home and, if approved will, impact on the saleability and value of my home. In addition the route from the M5 to the proposed bypass along the A39 is totally unsuitable for the amount of proposed traffic. Recent accidents have totally gridlocked the area for hours. An alternative route to Hinkley Point direct from the M5 should definitely be considered."

F Ward
"With Reference to: Development Consent Order Application - Statement of Reason - 6.3 - The Compelling Case in the Public Interest The document states that Government documents NPS EN-6 and NPS EN-1 emphasis the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions by alternative means of fuel generation, including nuclear. I agree that we need an alternative to carbon producing fuels. I would like to see more money and the development of technologies relating to solar, wind, wave and other renewable energies which have less disposal costs and problems than nuclear energy does. I live close to the proposed site and the higher than national average of leukaemia sufferers, especially among young people, is also of concern to me in relation to the power plant (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1837197/). How has the nuclear facility increased their protection of the surrounding population since this study? Another problem I have with enlarging Hinkley Point is that there needs to be significant and detailed planning for the proposal of its waste management. This is a far more pertinent issue than the planning proposal for the power station itself. Is the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority prepared to dispose safely and ethically of the extra waste produced by the proposed developments, not just at Hinkley but all over the country? I would like to see more emphasis on the disposal of nuclear waste."

Phil Johnstone
"I would like to represent my disagreement with the proposed development of Hinkley C. There has been a democratic deficit throughout the UK's 'nuclear renaissance' so far, which requires a rethink of how a project which contains various significant and complex ethical considerations can be properly discussed and understood. The 'salami slicing' of consultation between the local and the national, rather than creating a consultation system which is more accessible to the public, has created confusion, despondency, and a feeling of powerlessness. In consideration of the fact that a Judicial review launched by Greenpeace against the Government's Weightman Report is still ongoing, and also recent concerns that Government action such as a capped liability may half the price of nuclear power - thus acting as a subsidy which would contravene EU law, it would be wise to launch a public inquiry to properly assess these ongoing issues rather than pushing ahead when such uncertainties exist. As well as this, various issues around the site - details of construction traffic through local villages, the damage to housing, health and the environment which such traffic would cause, the fact that there is only one road and no bypass planned for Bridgwater, and the longer term affects this construction activity will have on tourism, remain poorly dealt with by EDF and thus require further investigation."

Julia Mercer
"I strongly object to the building of a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. Nuclear power is not the answer to UK energy needs. It is dirty, producing enormous amounts of carcinogenic radioactive waste with no long term solution for storage. It is expensive, being massively subsidised by the British public. And it is not the answer to climate change as it is very far from being carbon free. The dangers of nuclear power include the possibility of catastrophic accidents; the impact on human health: the possibility of nuclear power stations becoming terrorism targets, or of nuclear material falling into terrorist hands; and also the link with nuclear weapons proliferation."

Greta Kendrick
"I am concerned about the safety of nuclear power stations. If there is an accident the consequences can be catastrophic and I consider the storage of nuclear waste for future generations to deal with to be irresponsible and immoral. I am also concerned about Somerset County Council's apparent bias towards EDF's application."

Sarah Grace Bult
"Whilst understanding the need for continuing investment in providing energy for future generations, I am extremely concerned about the amount of traffic that will be required to sustain the development and what those vastly increased numbers will do to the immediate environment and road infrastructure around Bridgwater and the villages surrounding the Hinkley C site. Unless considerable investment is put into upgrading the exisiting roads, with compensation offered to those living on the thoroughfares most likely to be affected, real structural damage may well be incurred."

Joy Deakin
"I live in cannington very close to the western bypass route proposed by EDF - this will make a reduced quality of life in our village due to traffic chaos and danger from large vehicles on small roads that do not have pavements as outside my house also the fact that theysay they will not construct a bypass before work starts on the power station(construction could take 2-3 years)This situation could be alleviated from cannington by building a northern bypass from the M5 around Bridgwater to join up to the Hinkley road north of Cannington which will also avoid traffic congestion along the northern distributor road in Bridgwater, It will also greatly improve the access for emergency vehicles and will aid decommissioning of older stations."

Kate Slade
"I have two main concerns with the application. Firstly for the construction process the prposal to send the majority of the traffic through Bridgwater and on through our rural village of Cannington is going to make daily travel for the local community a complete nightmare. The traffic flows through Bridgwater and along the A39 are already under strain and it only takes a small incident for the whole area to grind to a halt as has already been demonstrated by a number of incidents in 2011. This is without the additional number of vehicles anticipated for the project. A new road taking the traffic direct from Dunball over the River Parrett out to beyond Cannington would alleviate thi straffic issue and also provide emergency services with an alternative route to Hinkley Point in the event that the A39 is blocked. It should be remembered that the A39 is also a major holiday route serving Minehead and beyond. Please make this alternative route a priority as without it the whole of the area will be blighted by traffic chaos. Secondly I have heard many reports of major concerns over the design of the plant itself. Surely the reports from oversees and the issues that have arisen over safety and costly overruns mean that a complete review of the proposed design is now necessary."

Nicola Clark
"I object to this development application in the strongest possible terms. Questioning National Policy statements In some places within this document I question the assumptions within the NPS's, despite the IPCs claim that I must not do this. NPS statements only set out the 'potential' of the sites at a generic level and in a ruling by justice Ousley recently he has clarifed that the NPS's are not the final word on various issues referred to by the NPS's. Further I reserve the right to disagree with government policy and I exercise my legal right to express my dissent, and also for to attempt to have my views heard within the planning system. I recognise that the changes to the planning system which have been introduced such as the existance of the IPC have been done to benefit developers such as EDF and to deny me my own voice in these matters. Scientific Objectivity The investigations, assumptions, interpretations and conclusions underpinning both the national policy statements and this application are scientifically questionable, often unsubstantiated and lacking in evidence or appropriate analysis. I feel that the reason for this, is the domination of all of these area's by government funded scientists and governments departments and programmes. The government in collusion with the industry, have shown themselves willing to go to any lengths to railroad their agenda through. The above mentioned problems are, I feel, the product of possible suppression within these programmes, processes and departments, but also in part due to other political pressures e,g the need to be seen to be acting on climate change which in turn has led to a cultural blind spot & cognitive dissonance regarding the benefits or problems relating to nuclear power and other related technologies. Cultural blindspots and cognitive dissonance are exacerbated by the use of P.R firms by both the industry & governments to influence public opinions on these issues. http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/member-docs/rachel-western/nda-%E2%80%98credibility-of-evidence-base%E2%80%99/ http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/NDA-Lack-of-Credible-Evidence-Base-CCC-Nov-2008.pdf http://www.newparadigmsforum.com/NPFtestsite/?p=550 Lack of Democracy EDF is s transnational company, whose controlling stake is owned by the French government, and, with assistance from the UK government is rail-roading this project through the local community. e.g. huge advertising campaigns, financial incentives to local educational establishments and businesses. Vast majority of residents left feeling hopeless and powerless. Collusion – The Guardian June 30th 2011 EDF employees seconded to DECC EDF has salami sliced the process despite being advised by the IPC not to do so. 13,000 signatures collected in Somerset by Stop Hinkley saying they do not want Hinkley C. Significant changes to the planning system and government policy have been specifically designed to provide advantage to the nuclear industry and to disadvantage communities. Inadequate consultation maximum propoganda EDF's consultation process has been poor. E.g. minimal to non-existent advertising of meetings, piecemeal information, insufficient time to work through applications relating to the HPC project, in particular this main DCO application. EDF employees ill informed at public presentations. Disparity of Arms – local communities have been besieged by EDF. Local media have taken editorial positions that favour EDF ensuring they have a platform over community groups (EDF often have numerous articles in one issue of local papers with significant column inches devoted to their articles whilst significant community group announcements articles relating to the nuclear issue are given minimum column inches if they're published at all). EDF are currently running an international campaign whose costs if known would make my eyes water, currently every telephone box and billboard in bridgwater is plastered in their adverts, similar is true in Bristol also. A company that does the minimum required for public consultation, whilst maximising advertising propaganda that claims how much the public love nuclear is clear evidence that this firm have more to fear from public opinion than they do to gain by it. This is the rationale behind their limited consultation and extensive advertising. Transport Infrastructure EDF’s transport plans are inadequate and unsafe. The local road infrastructure through Bridgwater, at both M5 junctions 23 and 24, the A39, Cannington and the local villages will become constantly gridlocked with the massive increase in traffic associated with the largest construction project in the UK. Local people and the councils know that even the slightest hold-ups and accidents on the A39 and accidents on the motorway cause many hours of congested delays especially when M5 traffic is rerouted on to the A38 through Bridgwater. The proposed plan will be seriously damaging to tourism, farming and businesses in the area, and cause long term deterioration in quality of life for the local population. Serious problems will be encountered for emergency services trying to reach accidents, deal with fires and help the sick, waiting times for emergency services are likley to be unacceptably increased causing excess deaths or other problems due to the extended waits. Significant problems are also likely to be encountered should a nuclear emergency arise on site with it's attendant need to evacuate thousands of workers as well as the public. EDF’s traffic ‘improvements’ are tinkering around the edges at best and do not address the fundamental issue which is the fact that the current road transport network is at capacity. In EDF's application to build a jetty, there was no alternative proposed against which to measure the need for a jetty. This has a bearing on all other transport plans. Fukushima This nuclear disaster is still ongoing and the whole issue of nuclear power needs to be properly assessed at the policy level before any committment is made to build more nuclear reactors. The Weightman report is not valid because the incident at Fukushima is not concluded. Further, 'simulated' stress tests are nothing more than models - with all of the attendant problems of modelling e,g base assumptions, parameters etc and therefore should not be treated as interchangeable with real stress testing. Such simulated stress tests can therefore only be used as an indicator of what may be issues, and cannot be taken to be definitive in terms of what the real issues for specific reactors are. The weightman report identifes numerous 'issues' whilst also giving the current fleet a clean bill of health, these findings are incongruent with the analysis and show the report for what it really is - a whitewash. At the time of writing there have been further earthquakes in Japan that are having an adverse effect on the stability of the storage pond in reactor 4. The japanese government's claims that they have achieved 'cold shutdown' are technically inaccurate and again are further propaganda designed to offer false reassurance to an anxious japanese public and a watchful world. Radiological Impacts The baseline conditions as well as the compound and cumulative impacts on human populations, wildlife and ecology from chronic exposure to low level radiation are inadequately investigated and modelled. The monitoring and reporting regime proposed for gaseous and aqueous emissions submitted to the Environment agency for a site license is not fit for purpose and does not meet the standards the public have a right to expect. The separation of these issues for consent is problematic because it does not engender a holistic view of the application. EDF did not sufficiently scope in the impacts of their proposed development in the wider context, e.g. discharges tracking across the UK or cross-boundary impacts, i.e. international waters, or to Ireland, France and Scandinavia (Europe) in the event of an accident. It should be stressed that pollution of the environment is irreversible and it is inevitable that radio-nuclides will get into the food chain, etc. Flood risk Flood risk assessments for 2017 & 2100 are insufficient given that the site will be accumulating 160 years of waste fuel in one place in a coastal location. EDF’s Flood risk assessment is based on assumptions about local flood plans e.g. Steart flood defence scheme. Locally, flood planning in Sedgemoor & West Somerset is uncertain with the constituency’s MP Ian Liddel Grainger opposing the Environment Agency plans for managed realignment at Steart, which are currently awaiting planning consent, I would question the wisdom of the IPC considering an FRA that is based on an external flood plan that is as yet unconsented (http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/planning%20online/Details.aspx & http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111018/halltext/111018h0002.htm & http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/80793.aspx ) Sediment behavior & mobility in the Severn Estuary is a huge area of uncertainty with respect to geomorphology, hydrodynamics and therefore flood risk, much of current research was carried out decades ago & requires updating. All flood risk modelling is intrinsically limited. (actual observations only go back 200 yrs all geological cores rely on theorizing and significant assumptions about past conditions). There is a tendency to underestimate/underpredict floodrisks (Fukushima, 1981 storm,) EdF have concealed some of their flood risk modelling results from Stolford residents, because in their assessment the scenario modelled is ‘unlikely’ – Fukushima too was ‘unlikely’. This is not in the public interest. The need for accurate predictions of environmental conditions far into the future in order to assure safety for future generations is at odds with the fact that the further into the future we try to extrapolate the less certain our predictions become, so uncertain as to render them meaningless. FRA for only 1 in 200 and 1 in 500 yr events is inadequate and is does not push the boundary of our experience far enough, thinking on what is plausible and likely is as much influenced by cultural and political dogma as it is by science. Emergency planning The lack of appropriate emergency planning is unacceptable. Whilst there is an off-site plan for the current stations (A&B) which may or may not be helpful in the event of an incident during construction, EDF have failed to produce any emergency plans for the proposed reactors. It cannot be assumed that the current plans would be appropriate given the increased power output of the EPR and the hotter more toxic fuel that would be used. information available to the public currently in terms of what to do in a radiological emergency are currently consists of a leaflet that tells you how to get information on a radiological emergency - they expect at least 10 day turn around time to answer your inquiryt about what to do. http://www.somerset.gov.uk/irj/go/km/docs/CouncilDocuments/SCC/Documents/Environment/Civil%20Contingencies/20110914CSS081-2011FindInfoOnRadiationEmergencies.pdf This lack of publicly available clear evacuation plans is not in the public interest, and only serves to exacerbate public concerns & anxiety about nuclear power. The building of Hinkley C could seriously jeopardise the effectiveness of current emergency plans if anything happened at Hinkley B during the construction phase. e.g. roads for evacuation and safety vehicles blocked by construction traffic. Currently the only planned access to the whole site is a network of C roads from Cannington to Hinkley Point. I have numerous concerns about the emergency back-up diesel generators and off-site supply, including but not limited to generator capacity, generator fuel supply, again I don't feel that this is an issue that the government and the regulators have 'under control' and again I believe that this a legitimate area for public scrutiny as part of the planning process. Ecological impacts The whole of the proposed site is surrounded by, and in some cases is nested in, areas that have the following designations: SPA (special protection area) SAC (special area of conservation) AONB (Area of outstanding natural beauty) RAMSAR (Wetland of international significance) The Severn estuary is of international marine importance. The national policy statements identify sites on the Severn estuary and the Wye estuary as being those that would experience the worst ecological impacts of all sites designated as suitable. The Habitats regulation Assessment for Hinkley C has identified Likely significant effects on: Severn Estuary SAC Severn Estuary SPA Severn Estuary RAMSAR Somerset levels and Moors SPA Somerset levels and Moors RAMSAR and a precautionary approach towards the significant effects on Air quality at the site with further assessment needed. Notably it has identified unacceptable impacts on: - species survival - overwintering bird populations EDF have failed to adequately assess the impacts of the project on species that may live off-site but that forage breed etc on the project site & it’s locality for example Bats The massive acreage of proposed new build on green land required to deliver this project is totally unacceptable. The scope of species assessed for the EIA is insufficent. Waste – Spent Fuel Consultation has been so concentrated on preliminary works, issues like waste and operations of the EPR have not been adequately presented to the public. No new nuclear build until the issue of the waste has been resolved. Storage area ponds short term and long term not designed yet (EDF application for site licence chapter 2 p.11 of 92) There is no GDF geological disposal facility complete anywhere in the world http://www.nuclearinst.com/uploads/Events/Branches/Worldwide%20perspective%20of%20Radioactive%20waste%20management%20lecture%20slides.pdf NDA and to assume that it will be in place is an unacceptable assumption. The only place in the UK that has 'come forward' in the highly flawed MRWS programme has completely unsuitable geology, the MRWS are also trying to supress public debate on this issue, http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/news-and-events/news/west-cumbrian-geology-unsuitable/ This supression is clearly linked with the fact that the government have decided in their policy that there will be a GDF in the future, however it is clear just form these few links that the reality and the rhetoric are far removed from each other. Lack of clarity that the site will be a storage facility for other sites (a Sellafield of the South West) once there is a license to store waste above ground at Hinkley possible unintended consequences of such a move could result in the importing of waste from other facities. The UK's only current PWR Sizewell B may have to close earlier than planned due to insufficient spent fuel storage capacity, this application is likely to experience similar issues. There are no finalised designs for fuel storage taking into account this waste is ‘hotter’ and more toxic than previous types of waste fuel. It is unacceptable for a planning decision to be made when such designs are not in place as this would effectively exclude public engagment on the issue, planning conditions are not an appropriate way of dealing with this issue, my children, grand children, great grandchildren will have to deal with the consequences of the decisions being made here at this time. There has never been a Long Term High level waste storage facility before at Hinkley Point the proposed planning is incomplete. Inconclusive plans for cooling of waste. Accumulating 60 years of waste fuel in one place in a coastal location, without taking into account possible future adverse natural conditions. Setting a precedent for many highly radioactive waste sites around the UK. Intergenarational equity will not be achieved through generation of new wastes and their attendant hazards. Even the NDA has managed to identify that the costing mechanisms for disposal and operational hazards are significant weaknesses and threats to nuclear waste managment in their own SWOT anaysis. http://www.slideshare.net/ReportLinker/nuclear-decommissioning-authority-strategic-analysis-review-6361945 Cumulative effects Flawed assumptions in scoping opinions, e.g. extent of development whose cumulative impacts will interact with a HPC project; PRoW users exposure to adverse impacts will be transient and short term. Zone of influence geographical extent inappropriate, for most topics not far reaching enough. Questionable substitution of quantative for qualitative assessments leading to underestimation of severity of impacts, and likelihood of impact occurrence, too much reliance on 'subjective' professional judgment. Prematurity There is no final approved design or verification via Generic design assessment for the E.P.R. There is no site licence. Flamanville continues to have construction problems and there exists uncertainty as to whether or not it will ever be completed. The French government are now looking at a new design in preference to the EPR the ATMEA. EDF are making no financial commitment to the Hinkley C project, until the end of 2012 There is currently no formal approval for the preliminary works or the section 106 agreement constantly referred to by the applicant. Employment and Economics Expectations of local jobs for local people have been misleading and exaggerated. In the construction of Flamanville unemployment rose. EDF have been accused of poor working conditions and low wages for their workers. The detriments are going to outweigh the economic benefits Credibility of EDF Consent should not be given to a company which lacks credibility. EDF’s Flamanville EPR new build is 5 years behind schedule way over budget and no energy has been produced. Uncertainty of EDF meeting the 2020 target for Climate Change. The proposed reactor design chosen is unproven, untested and not fully approved by any regulatory body. EDF has a poor maintenance and health and safety track record in France EDF has received the highest number of complaints for its energy services in the UK EDF engages in criminal activities and has been sentenced for illegal hacking of environmental NGO Greenpeace as demonstrated by the recent conviction and imprisonment of their executives. The public have been mislead by claims of low carbon nuclear energy when, because of the time scales involved, it is impossible to do a cradle to grave analysis. There is ample economic and political evidence at the global scale to create reasonable doubt whether such a project here would ever be completed if consented."

Pat Sanchez
"I would like to object to the plan for the following reasons: The increase in construction traffic is going to be unbearable for Cannington people, with relentless traffic noise over 11 hours a day, their health damaged by traffic pollution and their houses damaged by traffic vibration, all of which will go on for at least ten years. Moreover they risk either compulsory purchase of their homes or their devaluation. No wonder 93% of them do not want EDF traffic there. In the worst case, a nuclear accident, I doubt local roads would allow a speedy evacuation process. I am also worried about contamination of the land, already contaminated with enriched uranium. It is environmentally a very important area, not only a SPA, but a SCI and SSSI too. It would be vandalism to put it at risk, as it would undoubtedly be with spent fuel from new reactors, which is far more dangerous than legacy wastes, having to be stored in an area with geological uncertainties for so many years. My biggest concern however is about the danger to the health of young children in the vicinity of the plant. It is known that small children are more susceptible to radiation and even one additional case of leukaemia would be one too many. You cannot guarantee there will be no leaks of any kind. Even the gases emitted during routine working could damage the health of small children or pregnant women. It is a risk too great to take."

Stuart Hill
"Submission to the IPC enquiry into the EDF/NNB Hinkley Point ‘C’ proposals Mr & Mrs. S. Hill, Parrett’sReach, Riverside, Combwich, Bridgwater. For ourselves and on behalf of some of our neighbours who feel unsure or unable to complete a submission at this time. Given the details we are now discovering we are considering the formation of a Combwich harbour area immediate residents group to collectively represent our concerns to the IPC. Combwich Combwich is a small quiet rural village with no industrial activities and has been for many years. It has only one small road in & out which if obstructed isolates the whole village. Combwich has the local rural Primary school with its attendant ‘school run’. We have lived here for 25 years in one of the closest properties, overlooking and adjacent to Combwich Pill, opposite to Combwich Wharf. We are not opposed to Nuclear power or the building of new nuclear power stations. I and my family have had boat moorings in the pill since I have lived here and believe I have prescriptive right to do so. I believe the previous owner of my property also did and that there has been a right of free & uninterrupted boat passage from Combwich Pill to the river Parrett navigation from time immemorial. My wife & I are in our late fifties and have planned worked hard & prepared to live & enjoy the rest of our life our life in Combwich. We have no resources or will to begin again elsewhere so would be trapped. Since the existing Hinkley Power stations were built the amount of residents, residential properties and other activities has greatly increased. I have been told that the residential population of the village itself has more than doubled with the building of two housing estates and many other infill properties. When we moved here the wharf was completely disused and in a derelict state and obviously had been for many years. The berth was completely & solidly silted up to the height of the dolphins. The wharf steel walls were corroded through and filled with water at high tide which jetted out when the tide ebbed. The main channel of the pill was maintained by the flow of water from it. There was a long running unsuccessful campaign to get the then owners to do something about the wharf which had become an eyesore. A few years ago consent was granted to refurbish the wharf as British Energy (BE), the owners, suddenly wanted to bring in four (4) to six (6) large loads to upgrade ‘B’ site. The wharf foundation was excavated & filled with concrete and was raised with more concrete to accommodate RoRo ferries. Despite assurances at the time we ended up with unacceptable noise, light pollution & disturbance seemingly without anyone else’s control or any mitigation. The last barge and load collided with the bank when they first tried to dock it and the one before had a badly collided with something so they turned our sleepy village it a shipyard with cutting, grinding hammering & welding going on. Since then, other than keeping the berth free of silt the wharf has not been neglected again maintained so weeds etc. are again taking over. Page 1 of 5. 2. The Project/previous build The proposed Hinkley ‘C’ site is on a massively unprecedented scale in a rural area. The site & plant will be larger than both of the existing power station sites. The rated electrical capacity is three (3) times that of the current ‘B’ station alone (1650MW – 550MW). The proposals appear to have taken none of this into account and are being progressed at minimal cost to EDF with local residents paying the ultimate price. The dedicated haul road & other measures of the previous enquiry have been forgotten & ignored. Matters of concern We have many concerns & fears due in part to difficulty in accessing information and also to having been told different things by various EDF personnel. In doing this EDF have lost the trust of locals and have been publicly told this on more than one occasion. In example, we hosted two individuals representing EDF in our home who filled out a questionnaire to establish mitigation measures. We were told that it mitigation would naturally depend on the effect on individual properties/residents as part of the process someone would get back to us to specifically advise what would be available prior to impact as part of the application. When we went to the last EDF consultation in the village and asked what was happening with this we were advised that we would have to wait until the wharf rebuild was complete and the facility had been in operation for one year then retrospectively apply for mitigation! I have advised EDF repeatedly, since consultation commenced, that Combwich Pill & the wharf forms a natural amphitheatre that magnifies & reflexes sound and that noise studies & subsequent design should take this into consideration. They have not done this and seem to have chosen to conveniently ignore it. That the proposals put forward by EDF continue to have an immediate and potentially long term severe negative implication on our personal resources, lifestyle, mobility, peace & tranquillity, safety and the value of our property in that: 1. The C182 road past Combwich is under severe pressure now and is not fit or safe to carry the level of modern current traffic let alone the proposed extra volume. 2. At peak periods we currently have to wait for a considerable time to access/egress the village (such as the recent ‘B’ station outage) 3. In addition to the greatly increased level of residential properties there is a large grain store adjacent, international equestrian events at Stockland Lovell manor and the two simultaneously planned managed retreats with visitor attractions at Stolford. 4. Given 1 – 3 above there seems no assessment that emergency services will be delayed in getting to the scene of an emergency putting our lives & property at greater risk 5. I believe the current wharf is closer to my/our property than that stated in the application and the proposals will bring it even closer. 6. The original design shown to us was to build a wharf front adjacent & parallel to the river Parrett with the road behind the sailing club directly onto the haul road. This would take disturbance further from the centre of the village & residents. 7. Sheet piling on alluvial mud & silt so near to our properties will be extremely intrusive, cause damage, leave another poor rusting legacy and will amplify sound as before. If constructed the material should be rock/stone and designed for acoustic absorption. Page 2 of 5. 3. 8. The demolition works to remove the 2 metres of concrete recently put on top of the wharf will be extremely intrusive. 9. The effect of proposals will be to change Combwich from a residential area to an industrial one for many many years if not permanently. 10. There is no stated ‘life’ period for the wharf so it could remain in industrial use forever. A change in planning permission for further use would be impossible to prevent. 11. The volume, size and frequency of material to be berthed are overwhelming & by far exceed anything seen in the past. 12. Very large sea traffic will be coming into the wharf at all times of day & night (potentially 365/24/7) almost into our bedrooms. 13. The wharf proposals/impact assessments have conveniently ignored that sound in the harbour is magnified by reflection off of the existing sheet pilings, the harbour wall & the adjacent houses. It is unnoticeable at head height on Riverside but very noticeable above ground level (i.e. above 2 metres & especially at bedroom window height). 14. There is no mitigation against light pollution or river traffic noise for Riverside properties. 15. The size of the vessels used and their onboard plant means it is impossible to silently dock. We have already experienced this 24 hour disruption. 16. If it is as before vessels will need to be refuelled on the dock from HGV tankers. There seems to be no mention or risk assessment for this and it would happen on a SSSI. 17. Given the size, intensity and volume it will be impossible to manage shipping in the wharf without constant major severe disruption to Combwich harbour area residents over a very long period of time. 18. The application appears to contradict itself in that it states that the wharf will be in use 15/16 days a month for 15/16 sea deliveries (9.6.39) & then later states that offloads will be over 24 hours so surely this means a long period of continuous use? 19. Navigation of large vessels from the River Parrett into Combwich Pill is difficult and potentially very dangerous as has been proved with recent dockings. This has an impact on the safety of the general public and other mariners, especially those using/mooring in the Pill. 20. Despite numerous assurances previously given to keep the pill mouth clear for others the current berth dredging operations result in a siltation bank at the pill opposite the berth that obstructs safe passage to deep or fin keeled vessels such as mine. The silt from the berth is pushed out into the river by a large excavator at half tide and it is washed back to form a bank. 21. As a result of 15 to 18 above, and the extreme flow of the Parrett before & after high tide slack water, the safest time for access/egress is at high water just when large load deliveries are scheduled. This is contrary to the assessment given for recreation & amenity which results in yet again another erroneous ‘no impact’ conclusion. 22. Though a longstanding member of the sailing club/clubs I have my own pontoon & mooring on the mud opposite the wharf. I was instrumental in obtaining and putting in most of the main mooring chain myself with the help of friends to provide safer moorings. If there is no intention to interfere with these moorings why are EDF trying to lease or compulsory purchase the mud bank and how will this affect our rights. 23. Though it is on land owned by EDF the changes to access & fencing on the far side of the Pill appear to prevent/restrict access to this area. It is use for long term beaching of boats & safe access and I believe prescriptive right to do so exists. 24. The river Parrett estuary SSSI is a noted safe roost for wildfowl & waders, especially during severe weather periods. Without assessment & mitigation measures the impact of all the industrial activity will have a severe detrimental impact on the SSSI. It will affect the enjoyment of it by locals and those using the west coast path. Page 3 of 5. 4. 25. I am a longstanding member of the Combwich boat club and am not aware of any consultation arrangements that have been held with members to give a formal view on the proposals to EDF. If those views that are stated are factual I certainly do not agree with them and they are contrary to those that have been given by members in public meeting and to parish councillors. 26. The conclusion of low importance impact, for reasons stated above, has not been demonstrated as based on fact but based on supposition, inaccuracy and unproven information. 27. To bring in massive amounts of material & to pile to create a freight area with no legacy at Combwich is environmentally unsound. To do this on existing roads is unconscionable. Hinkley Point Accessibility Access to the coastal path and foreshore at Hinkley was for many years through the external site parking by the visitor centre at the western end of the ‘A’ site with a short walk to the foreshore. A few years ago this was temporarily withdrawn, apparently due to a perceived security threat to the then still commissioned ‘A’ site and never reinstated. This has resulted in a much longer & steeper walk further to the west, precluding access, and poses a safety risk to those using the foreshore in winter. The current proposals extinguish the existing western footpaths which would result in even further journey on foot which tends to exclude all those other than the young & extremely fit. There is no provision for those less able to access the coastal path for a considerable distance. Access to the foreshore is not linear due to the high cliffs & sea defences. It is difficult to walk laterally along the foreshore due to its rocky nature. Lack of detail regarding public access provision onto the foreshore does not allow a fair assessment of impedance and obstruction. It is difficult to access the foreshore at many points currently due to the sea defences, boulders and low cliffs. The Severn estuary has the world’s second highest tidal range which can lead to unexpected extreme conditions. The risk of getting it wrong being cut off by the tide and soaked risking exposure is a real & present threat. Increasing egress difficulty has a general public safety implication that does do seem to have been assessed. There are no facts detailing the additional distances to be walked to access the foreshore and no formative risk assessment identifying mitigation measures for any difficulties that could be caused. I believe a shorter safe access route (F3-F16) could be maintained throughout the project at little cost. No factual evidence has been put forward to refute this. A suggestion from us, initially received as a good idea, that there should be reinstatement of the permissive vehicular access and a safe area to park has not been offered (initial security concerns were later dispelled during discussion with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary representative). A further suggestion made of a safe area to park adjacent to footpath access WL 23/70 & WL 23/71 south of the site of off the C182 has not been offered. The current arrangements couple with the increased volume & size of traffic will create a safety hazard and potentially preclude use of the footpaths. Page 4 of 5. 5. The above measures would be seen as favourable legacy to offset the impact of the project on the general public recreational amenity. Other matters It is extremely difficult, if not unjust, to expect the ordinary lay person to find sufficient resource to evaluate and respond to such a proposal with potentially life changing impacts given: • The nature & volume of the material to be assessed • the very short time given to register response • that there are for other separate major proposals affecting the immediate local area (Site Prep works, MMO Jetty inquiry, Port of Bristol & Environment Agency managed retreats to the east of Hinkley) • Three of the proposals were released for planning consultation at the same time & over the festive period precluding access to professional guidance. • The information is difficult to access by home computer, especially as there is no facility to copy selected tracts into a document. • Information potentially affecting us is dispersed throughout the whole body & very difficult to navigate/find/comprehend. • There is no resource to help anyone understand or reply formatively. • In many cases EDF have not responded to previous input & explained why improvement suggestions made in good faith are not acceptable. • As I have previously suggested to EDF, and subject to competent assessment, I believe that measures could be identified to minimise this impact i.e. adaptive lighting, time of day/year sensitivity to major works. • The errors and omissions after prolonged active input and assistance from us raises concerns over the factual integrity of the proposal. If there are additional matters that are subsequently identified that could have detriment we would still wish to be able to register comment. Conclusion • Without access to the calculations used many of the proposals seem to be based on developer cost minimisation. i.e. the proposal to offload at a major port, reload onto euro barge, offload at Combwich and then transport to Hinkley is environmentally unsound and causes several areas of major impact instead of one. An offload facility should be provided on the foreshore as happened before would be far more logical. It could also leave a legacy for the marine environment, tourism, beach angling etc. • The C182 is substantially inadequate. A rail link, dedicated haul road, or substantial upgrade along its whole length, including roundabout access at key points such as Combwich. • Impact assessments would be for the duration that the sites are in existence therefore more severe than as stated. • That mitigation measures could & should be evaluated and established. • A compliance framework for mitigation matters should be established. • Given the length of time that consultation has taken place greater detail should be available for analysis and the consideration of mitigation. Mr. Stuart Hill 22nd January 2012. Page 5 of 5."

Alan Debenham
"( Note : I am a long-standing member of Stop Hinkley and its Committee - also its Hinkley SSG representative - and as such I wholeheartedly support SH's submission to the IPC) Personally I disgree with planning permission being granted for the building of Hinkley C on the following grounds :- Prematurity - things are still a long way away from this enormous project being able to actually proceed satisfactorily to any realistic conclusion, with or without planning permission, and therefore until all the necessary parts of the project are proven to be in place or awaiting activation it would be wrong to give any unconditional planning go--ahead, and in this regard one such definite condition which must be included is the complete and qualitative restoration of the whole site to its former undeveloped countryside situation should the whole project have to be abandoned at any stage. Democracy - the local and countywide consultation process has not been as comprehensive and as lengthy as required by planning law to suit such a vast project and it has been dominated by EDF presenting an image of fait accompli with only guarded willingness to negotiate over minor details. Transport Infrastructure - still plans fail to meet sincere local protestations regarding the enormous detrimental impact this project will bring about regarding traffic flows, noise and pollution. Radiological impact locally and otherwise - plans do not thoroughly enough address and assess this extremely contentious matter where discharges from nuclear plants are routine and inevitable. Floods, geological disturbance and terrorist attack - equally these important dangers have not been thoroughly and comprehensively assessed. Emergency planning - again this needs a much more comprehensive detailed description, especially in the light of what exists at present and apparent inadequacies resulting from currently known Fukushima failures. Radioactive waste disposal - this whole planning field from storage and disposal of low-level to high-level radioactive waste is not adequately enough provided for and cannot be until some definite solutions to disposal of high-level waste in deep underground burial and on-site facilities for medium-level waste have been determined - also the plan to store highly radioactive spent fuel on-site for up to 160 years is high new risk nor properly assessed. Ecological and general environmental ( short-term and long-term ) impact - not in my view thoroughly enough assessed and analysed and the plans do not seriously enough reverse or remedy the extremely negative impacts of such an enormous ravaging and very noisy desecration of such a vast area of existing open countryside - including for local humans as well as for wildlife and landscape. Employment and economics - these are both in my opinion artificially presented by EDF as some sort of wonderful gift to Bridgwater and the whole county to justify the true terrible ugliness of this enormous construction project - the current very active and expensive advertising campaign centred on provision of future jobs for hundreds of local youths and gifted community facilities should be backed in the plans by much more detailed description of future employment estimates and economic impacts. Reactor design and safety - the planned EPR reactors are bigger than any previously built with detailed control and safety features yet to be approved and finalised, plus EDF's current building of new nuclear plants in France and Finland being still fraught with technical hiccups, big delays of all kinds, and financial embarassment in the enormous over budgeting needed for both projects to proceed at all - also EDF's safety record is suspect compared to current UK nuclear industry stringency, plus its employment policies and practices. Financial and other credibility of EDF - as yet the plans do not satisfactorily prove the financial credibility of either EDF or the whole Hinkley C project and therefore they fail to meet current UK planning law guidance - nuclear power has always proved to be outlandishly dangerous, expensive, and unsustainable from cradle to grave and cannot exist without big subsidies from public funds which now might be unavailable. Legal challenge - many like myself believe the NPS to be flawed and illegal because of its faulty consultation process and eventual government approval and adoption, both in terms of its inadequacies and presentation of false facts regarding the so called future 'energy gap' and its essential filling with nuclear new-build, plus and its proclamation of nuclear power being very low in carbon emissions - the present legal challenge to the NPS by Greenpeace has yet to be finally resolved and there could be a further European legal confrontation on the grounds of improper subsidy from public funds. . ."

Karen Bolton
"Concerns over the plans for J24 as live on the Stockmoor estate."

Hinkley Point Retired Employees Association
"I belong to an organisation with 424 members. These members are either former staff at Hinkley Point or their spouses. The vast majority of the many I have spoken to on the Hinkley C proposals are very much in favour of building a Hinkley C and believe as I do that nuclear power would be a valuable addition to the desired electricity generation mix providing a low carbon source at base load to the grid system. The reason for a few of my members not in favour of this project are due to issues such as proximity to their homes of construction of the site (Burton), accommodation and planned car parking and other planned facilities. Their objections are not due to issues of nuclear power but how this particular development affects their lives and their property values. However both I and the vast majority of members I have discussed the issues with support the project as a reliable low carbon generation sorce and valuable addition to the UK generation requirements with great benefits for the local community in providing mainly new skilled employment opportunities, injection of a great deal of money into the area with benefits to many local businesses and to the community. My main concerns as with many people in the area concern traffic control and provision of an adequate infrastructure. Having viewed the traffic control proposals I am not confident they will prevent huge traffic congestion in and around Bridgwater at times. Undoubtedly some imrovements to road junctions, roundabouts and traffic lights will assist but do not appear sufficient to prevent a large problem with traffic flows at peak times and other times as well. Unlike many of my members i do not support a northern bypass from Dunball as I do not believe in digging up any further our valuable wetlands areas and further invading the habitat with what would be a very expensive to construct road due to the unstable nature of most of that land. However our existing roads do need some significant improvements if we are to avoid Hinkley C traffic having a disasterous impact on our roads around Bridgwater. Import of equipment and materials need to be maximised through the proposed jetty at Hinkley and at Combwich warf. How are contractors to be controlled with their vehicle movements off site? Writing into their contracts is one thing but can it be controlled. What if the proposed traffic improvements turn out to be inadequate what thoughts have been given to a Plan B? Has a limited convoy system at agreed times been considered? Can the bulk of the road traffic movements be moved to the quiet hours say between 9.00pm and 6.00am? Why are more signifcant road widening, corner widening projects not been proposed (looking at the improvements to the Silver Fish junction on the A39 what is being done is not adequate even when land is available). The other main issue concerning me is provision of adequate infrastructure. In addition to itinerate consrtuction workers who can live in temporary accommodation there will be a large influx of new permanent staff plus a large proffessional and skilled workforce who will install plant and equipment and then stay on to commission this equipment until full output is obtained, a period that will extend to ten years or more. To cater for these people and also absorb all the increased population from planned new housing construction in the area will require many more school places for instance. Whilst the new schools at Robert Blake and Chilton Trinity are being built will they accommodate the large increase in school places required as well as rehouse their existing pupils? Proceeding with similar improvements to Haygrove and East Bridgwater and providing many more places at these schools would seem essential and central government should be made aware of the significance that Hinkley C will have on the school population. I do believe that EDF should also put a lot more into the local community bearing in mind the tremendous impact this construction will have in the community. This increased support should I believe focus on providing more facilities for children and community support in the deprived areas of Bridgwater such as Hamp, Sydenham, Eastover, Victoria and also the surrounding villages and North Petherton. Infrastructure imrovements are obviously required in other areas in the community that I have not mentioned but which are essential for expanding the population in the Bridgwater area.."

Joseph T Broadbent
"I strongly support the application both from a holistic environmental prospective and from a national strategic energy policy view point. The overall benefit to the UK, both in terms of reductions in CO2 emissions and contribution to a balanced energy policy far outweigh the local environmental and short term transport issues and dis-benefits associated with the large transient workforce. The large number of local jobs created both during construction and operation will deliver a sizeable and sustainable boost to the local economy and the community as a whole. I support the proposal."

John Bates
"I am strongly in favour of the Hinkley Point C project as it will provide substantial employment for the local area during the build, its operation and final de-commissioning. It could potentially provide well paid jobs for my childrens working lives"

Andrew Jeffery
"The national policy statements say that the worst places to build a new power station in terms of ecological impact are the Severn and Wye estuaries. In this case the areas affected would be places that are all recognised as being ecologically important. These areas include the following designations: SPA (special protection area); SAC (special area of conservation); AONB (Area of outstanding natural beauty); RAMSAR (Wetland of international significance). EDF's assessment of this impact has also been questioned. Transport infrastructure in the area is of concern. The proposed improvements are not sufficient for the largest building project in the country and will greatly affect residents from the near vicinity to as far away as Bridgwater. The storage of nuclear waste has not been finalised or presented properly for the public. Without this the build should not go ahead and with this storage of the scale proposed is of great concern to the area and it's people. The integrity of EDF and it's credibilty to deliver this project, even as specified in this application, have been questioned technically, legally and economically."

Bronwen Webb
"The proposed new nuclear build at Hinkley Point C is a vital project for the provision of much needed jobs in Somerset - never mind the country's need for additional electricity generation. Somerset is a very rural county where good, secure and fairly well paid jobs are few and far between and this development will be a huge boost in economic benefit to the county and provision of jobs. Many young people leave the area after school, college or university to seek employment elsewhere which results in a much older population being left behind which in turn becomes a drain on the local authority resources. The new development at Hinkley Point C will provide secure, fairly well paid jobs over a wide ranging number of careers from - civil engineers, secretaries, administrative assistants, cleaners, caterers, project managers, receptionists, drivers, security staff, safety professionals and quality controllers to name but a few. If the development was not given permission to proceed, there would be a number of job losses - something that Somerset as a county- especially in the current economic climate simply cannot sustain"

D J E Bryant
"We have accepted that Hinkley C is going to be built, but our concerns are the access roads. We live on the A39 at Sandford Cross and witness all the accidents and related traffic chaos that ensues. We have many doubts if the provision of a roundabout on our corner will cure the situation. The current road system struggles to cope in the Bridgwater area, and feel that a direct route from the motorway at Junction 23 Dunball bypassing Bridgwater and Cannington is by far the better option. Consideration has to be given to the increased traffic flow not only during construction but when the station is running, taking into account additional housing to be built and schooling in the future years."

Ben Cleaveley
"The land that is being used, which is currently bridgwater sports and social club, which hold the sports field houses mutliple football teams, cricket teams and a playing field for people to play recreation sports on should be either kept intack or replaced by EDF. Hundreds of people uses these facilities every week/month/year for enjoyment and if this was to be taken away there are not many other suitable green area like this within the town. Therefore if these were to be taken away a suitable replacement must be ensured otherwise this could mean the future of mutliple sports teams are in doubt along with 1 of a few areas with in the town people can go and play sport on. And in the current time with high obesity, this would be a massive loss to the town."

Anthony Seymour
"I am strongly opposed to nuclear power. If cannot ever be 100% safe; and attempts to make it so can only escalate costs to uneconomic levels. Even if 99.9% safe, the implications of failure are enormous - massive casualties including slow deaths and rendering large tracts of land uninhabitable for thousands of years. There cannot ever be a solution to the management of nuclear waste. Germany has shown that it is possible to stop nuclear power, and to make a genuine and realistic commitment to renewable and safe sources such as wind and solar power."

Susan Gripton
"Apart from the large abnormal indivisible loads being imported through Combwich Wharf, I vehemently object to EDF’s other proposals at Combwich. I object to the New Goods Wharf, laydown facility, Hours of use, types of use, Road freight use at Combwich (there has been a material change here since the Stage 2 update consultation where the area was named as a laydown facility – not a freight logistics site and Combwich did not feature in the Freight Management Strategy for road freight use). I have strong concerns about the effects on the residents Of Combwich, particularly with regard to industrial scale, use of the Wharf involving noisy deliveries planned for 24hours a day, 7 days a week. The IPC should seek to recommend sensible planning conditions, that take into account the position of the wharf in our rural village and the noisy effects generated by the proposals. The recent fact that over 100,000 vehicle movements would be required to transport the material (now over 900,000 tonnes) for the Combwich facilities –all by road, really do question EDF’s justification for the laydown area here. I wish the IPC to examine rigorously – The Flood risk aspects of the Combwich sites, How Site selection was carried out ? Why other sites for storage or road fright use (such as at Hinkley Point) were not considered (taking into account the High Flood Risk area that the laydown area occupies) and if procedures were carried out at the relevant time, correctly, involving agencies other than EDF. There are issues at Combwich such as Traffic and Transport, the effects on residents amenity, how other users of Combwich Pill will not be disadvantaged and Environmental concerns that require close scrutiny and examination. Just how much change can a community be expected to host for the National good? What about the cumulative effects from the 2 huge habitat creation schemes ? If the priority for EDF is to use Combwich Wharf to bring in the essential AIL’s and large loads then surely, now that they number over 330, it is clear that, considering the natural restrictions, this will realistically occupy the first three and a half to four years use of deliveries. With very little or no ‘other goods’ being imported then what possible reason is there to have a New Goods Wharf and associated laydown storage area at Combwich, especially now that EDF accept other goods can and will be imported via the sea jetty at Hinkley Point. Is the HPC site actually large enough ? and if not, why not ? EDF have perhaps chosen one of the most expensive sites (expensive – environmentally, socially and economically ) in Somerset for a laydown area, in open countryside but close to a rural village, at a greenfield location, on a high flood risk area, five miles from where it should be (HPC site). Whatever direction you approach Combwich from you pass through miles of flood zone 1 and 2 areas before descending down to zone 3 at the laydown site. Even if the Cannington B site was used ( approx. 250m away and turned down by EDF – check reasons !) most of the road transported material and 100,000 vehicle movements would not be required ! The EDF Freight Management Strategy is partly based on using Sea deliveries to take vehicles off the roads. Where is the justification or rationale if more vehicle journeys are created just to build the other goods laydown area at Combwich, than could ever be saved by importing through Combwich Wharf? Having to pile drive and raise the 10 hectare laydown area by 1m, with an impermeable concrete pavement, warrants intense examination and surely indicates consent should be refused. Every square metre must be justified as it is suspected EDF may be building an overcapacity here to justify road freight using the spare space. Sue Gripton."

Lindsay Southcombe
"I am fundamentally opposed to nuclear power on the grounds of danger to public health and wildlife; the huge problems of waste, particularly the small but dangerous amounts of highly radioactive materials; the huge cost of decommissioning; the myth that it is carbon neutral; the danger of terrorism; the central supply nature; the huge costs involved that is bound to involve public subsidy; uranium is not a finite resource and the environmental costs of mining are devastating. The effects on the local people and environment will be devastating. Indeed, I read that EDF has already done a lot of highly invasive preparatory work. There is much propoganda being spread about the increase in jobs and house values but this will not be a net increase as many jobs will be lost, especially in traditional food industries, which we should be preserving at all costs. It will affect the tourism industry for years and cause horrendous road congestion. Not a very pleasing prospect for local people. The site includes SSSIs which should be protected. As it is EDF have already destroyed hedgerows and other wildlife habitat. This area is also vulnerable to flooding at present - this risk will be so increased by these proposals. In short this proposal would be a disaster for human health, wildlife, the environment, the local economy and would be a mockery of democracy as, once again, some corporate giant tramples over the wishes and desires of people with a true investment in the land. Please say no! Thank you for your time."

Pete Jowsey
"I agree that this development would be a positive step locally, generating jobs, local income and improving the local area prospects and should be supported nationally."

Jonathan Smailes
"1) I am strongly in favour of this development. However, 2) Local villages outside of the 5 closest to the development will also see significant disruption to their quality of life in what is a quiet rural area. EDF Energy have not provided any of the mitigation benefits (such as free double glazing or generous house price support) to villages such as Stockland Bristol which, as the crow flies are still very close and have line of sight of the power stations. Stockland Bristol in particular is down wind on the prevailing North-Westerly wind and regularly hears running noise and tannoy announcements from the existing site and the HPC preparation work currently under way. Due to the wind, dust is also likely to be a problem. It is crazy to think this village, and Steart, and Otterhampton and Combwich, to name a few, will not be very badly affected for at least 10 years. I Believe EDF have offered woefully inadequate mitigation to the local villages who are just outside their chosen area. The local council has, I understand, in the recent past formally agreed with local people on this issue but EDF has ignored us all. This is particularly disappointing as local people are generally in support of this massive project."

Simon Dunford
"Like many I am an energy consumer. I believe a low carbon reliable, affordable source of energy under the strategic control of local government is essential for our economic well being. I therefore support safe nuclear power. I live around 15 miles down wind of the oldest and probably least safe of UK operating civil nuclear power stations (Oldbury) and would appreciate it being replaced by a newer safer (nuclear) source of electricity generation."

Dr George Peter Richardson
"The construction of this facilty will have a serious negative impact on the local environment, in terms of traffic, noise pollution, and visual impact. It will have a serious impact on the global environment due to the massive amount of energy used in its construction, both directly in terms of transport, and indirectly in terms of embodied energy in materials. The facility will pose an environmental hazard for thousands of years due to the problem of storage of radioactive waste. The facility will present a massive accident risk and could cause a catastrophe similar to the recent disaster at Fukoshima in Japan. Accident and emergency planning for this facility are inadequate in view of the enormous risks that it poses to the local and regional population."

Judith Cromwell
"Whilst not a local resident, this proposal has been brought to my attention by friends who live in Somerset. The proposal to use overland pylons instead of the slightly more expensive underground cabling is extremely short sighted. It may cut some costs now but will be a blight on the landscape - and not just your average landscape but some of the most beautiful in our country - for decades. I recognise we're living in austere times right now but the option of underground cabling is surely the obvious choice to preserve the outstanding natural beauty of the area - and preserve the tourist revenues for the area too."

Julien Temple
"As a local resident I am extremely concerned about this planned nuclear development. The impact on the local area, the cost of the project and the plan for the waste from the decommissioned power stations are some of my key worries."

Elizabeth Marriott
"Combwich is a small closely knit community where we chose to retire in 2002. Whilst we do not oppose the construction of HPC, we are against the devastating plans by EDF for Combwich Wharf and the associated development for the lay-down area. Our objections are; • The unnecessary construction of a 10.1 hectares lay-down facility, on a flood plain, for storing AILs and as a Freight depot to store up to 800 containers. Wharf use for the 320 AILs alone, will take over 2 years of the 4 year HPC construction period leaving less than two years for other goods. The tonnage of other goods delivered through the wharf will be less than the 900,000 tonnes of materials required to build the lay-down area and the 45000 tonnes of de-commissioning material. A serious flaw in the FMS. • The proposed 24 hour 7 days a week working hours, including the arrivals during the night of tug assisted 90 metre barges will cause serious noise, light, vibration and pollution issues. This is unacceptable and working hours need to be restricted with no working allowed on Saturday afternoon and all day Sunday. The FMS already states that there will be no HGV movements on Sundays along the C182! • The proposal to use the lay-down area for breaking down road borne HGV loads and storing freight in the lay-down area. This will increase the total number of vehicles (LGVs) using the C182 between Combwich and HPC and will provide a loophole in the ban on HGVs on Sundays as there is no ban on LGVs. • The proposal to use all possible high tides for deliveries, around 30 tides per month, will seriously impair leisure use. • The proposal by EDF to modify the wharf and build the lay-down area before the Cannington bypass is built. This will result in 60,000 HGV movements through Cannington village and onto the C182 in just under a 2 year period. • The cosmetic changes to the A38 and A39 junctions through Bridgwater, which are already seriously congested, rather than build a northern bypass and without the HPC development were predicted to be gridlock by 2016. The original Public Inquiry in the early 1990s, into a much smaller HPC, strongly recommended that a bypass should be built. • Lack of immediate speed controls and visibility at junctions of side roads on C182. Whilst a recent traffic survey indicated average speeds were below 60 mph, it also showed that 20% of vehicles exceeded 60 mph and significant numbers exceeded 80 mph. The average speed also included a high proportion of slow moving farm traffic. • Minimal emergency planning if the M5/A39 are closed affecting travel into or through Bridgwater. What are the plans for major emergency at HP that would require local villages to be evacuated?"

Linda Hugl
"EMERGENCY PLANNING - Inadequate planning for protecting population in vicinity and beyond from a serious incident, whether due to human error, technical failure, malicious attack, natural events, or a combination thereof. - In an emergency, evacuation via a single, narrow road would be problematic. - No clear provision for level of manpower and emergency service resources that would need to be immediately available. FLOOD RISK - There is a 100-year flood risk in this area, and spent fuel would be stored on site for at least 160 years. - Inadequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforeseen tidal wave event. - Such events have occurred before locally, e.g. in 1607, and cannot be ruled out in future. - In particular, depletion of ice mass in polar regions due to global warming may lead to increased seismic activity in future, plus sea levels are expected to rise. PROBLEMS WITH EDF NUCLEAR BUILDS / EPR DESIGN - Four existing EPR projects are all experiencing design and construction problems, at Flamanville 3 (France), Olkiluoto 3 (Finland) and Taishan 1 & 2 (China). - To date, no reactor of EPR design has been completed anywhere in the world. Unresolved design issues remain, concerns having been expressed by nuclear regulators in UK, France and Finland. WASTE / SPENT FUEL - Inadequate planning for management of radioactive waste produced by the proposed facility. - High-level spent fuel storage on site (for at least 160 years): not had this previously at Hinkley; an unacceptable burden to place on present and future generations. - Spent fuel would be much hotter and more radioactive than with earlier reactor designs. How would it be cooled? - Storage area ponds not yet designed. - Hinkley thought to only have a 7-year spent fuel storage capacity. - Prolonged storage of such waste on-site, with no viable final disposal solution in the UK or anywhere in the world, exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other incidents. This is negligent towards future generations, who must continue to manage the waste and assumes they will have the information and resources necessary to ensure safe containment for millennia to come. DEMOCRACY - Serious concerns regarding new nuclear build that were raised in the National Policy Statements consultation have been ignored. - EDF has reportedly been offering inducements to local schools and businesses, to curry favour with the local community. - In France last year, EDF employees and agents were found guilty of spying on environmental group Greenpeace. - There have been reports of collusion between the UK Government and EDF to downplay the seriousness of the Fukushima disaster. - The applicant has therefore not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy or transparent. HEALTH CONSEQUENCES - The impact of chronic low-level radiation exposure on public health and local ecology is being ignored. - Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in the estuary, e.g. Bridgwater Bay mudflats. - Monitoring and reporting of radioactive discharges is inadequate (public is only given annual average figures). - Public health issues, e.g. Burnham-on-Sea, downwind of Hinkley – cancer clusters."

Lucinda Garrett
"I agree with all aspects of the application on the basis that replacing the UK's aging nuclear fleet is necessary if the UK intends to address the threat of global warming whilst meeting the growing demand for affordable and secure electricity. Furthermore, the development of a new nuclear power station will contribute significantly to the local economy in Somerset as well as the UK supply chain, at a time when the rate of unemployment is at a 17-year high. This view is based on a number of Government and independent studies."

Lauren Wardle
"Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area (one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset , Devon and South Wales , including my friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for it's eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

Samuel Folland
"As a young person, this development will have an effect over the rest of my life. I live downwind of the reactor, and there is lots of evidence around the world about small leaks and accidents being bad for the ecosystem, and people living nearby like me. This reactor will open as Germany closes its last reactor, making them leaders in renewable energy which will have a bad effect on our economy as I grow up. There is evidence that the coast around the site is contaminated and that the risk of cancer is higher downwind. I live downwind. It is built next to the sea, where there is the second highest tide in the world. There has already been one tidal wave many years ago, and the sea levels are rising, which could cause flooding and a disaster like in Japan. The reactor is a risk to health, wealth and this country. When I grow up I will have to deal with the waste that is produced, the bad health of the population, the accidents, the legacy of a bad planning decision if this reactor is built."

North Somerset Council
"1. Housing - the accommodation needs of the non-home based workers that will be required should the IPC approve the application for the construction of Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station and associated development. In particular we would like the IPC to look at the accommodation mitigation measures that have been put in place by the applicant to ensure they are distributed proportionately in relation to where the impact is felt. The applicant NNB Genco (trading as EDF energy) has produced a gravity model and accommodation strategy which highlights the approximate number of workers requiring accommodation within a 60/90min travel zone of the main site. We agree with their methodology and findings, and understand that both West Somerset DC and Sedgemoor District Council agree too. The modelling states around 12% of the non-home based workers will be requiring accommodation in North Somerset (primarily Weston Super Mare). EDF have created a Housing Fund (£5m) to mitigate issues relating to the supply of accommodation in the local authority areas identified by their study. We agree and welcome this funding being put in place and made available to mitigate any negative impact. However, from this funding, £4million has been front loaded to the S106 for the site preparation works application approved by West Somerset DC to start addressing accommodation issues prior to the main application being approved. The S106 states that the money is only to be spent within West Somerset and Sedgemoor, leaving only £1million to come forward should the main application be approved. We are very concerned about the front loading of the housing fund as no provision has been made to mitigate pressures on private rented accommodation within North Somerset. We also have no guarantee that any of the funding left will be forthcoming to us as we are unlikely to be party to the S106 negotiations for the main application. We understand the applicant has stated they wish to see the housing fund distributed fairly to the local authority areas to mitigate any negative impacts. We would therefore like the IPC to examine this issue and we will supply a local impact report at the appropriate time which will contain more detail on this issue and evidence of impact on accommodation supply within North Somerset. 2. Transport – There is inadequate information available to assess the impact on the highways in or close to North Somerset. In particular there is concern about the impact on Junction 21 and 22 of the M5. Both serve as main access routes to Weston-super-Mare and the south of the district. Junction 21 is already at capacity and Junction 22 is congested at peak times. There is also concern regarding HGV traffic through North Somerset’s roads if the Mendips is to be used as a principal source of aggregate We do however welcome EDF’s offer to use buses to transport workers from North Somerset to the site 3. Skills and Employment - We welcome the offer from EDF for a resource in Weston Job Centre to direct people to the Job Brokerage Unit in Bridgwater. This will enable North Somerset residents to make the most of job opportunities. A potential concern would be at a time of building expansion in Weston Super Mare construction workers may be drawn to the Hinkley C construction."

Neil Seacroft
"I am a resident of Cannington village with a property on the high street. The proposal that large earth and spoil moving lorries are to use the high street as a main arteriel route for the hinkley sounds like a prelude to disaster. There is currently heavy lorries from the local quarry already using this route. I not only hear them passing I feel them passing since thay pass less than 2 metres from my house wall. The addition of the volume of heavy traffic proposed by EDF will no doubt impact badly on the quality of life for people along the high street, not overlooking the anticipated impact on my house wall at some time since the footpath is low and narrow. I cannot help but regard this propasal as an offence against the dictates on common sense . The building of a bypass should be made a first requirment for this project."

Denise Drake
"Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforeseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area (one is on record for instance from 1607) and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset , Devon and South Wales , including my friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. As the proposers of this development, EDF have a duty of care towards us, the residents of Somerset, which they have not adequately discharged in this current application. The huge financial burden of picking up the shortfall in these plans would fall on the tax-payer. Furthermore, there is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for it's eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforeseen accidents and more importantly is negligent towards future generations who must maintain the containment of the waste produced by EDF at their expense or suffer the consequences. This is particularly negligent because it assumes that future generations will necessarily have the information and the social and physical resources they will need to continue this safe containment."

R W Hall CBE FREng
"Hinkley Point C I worked in the nuclear industry for some 40 years, which included in the late 70's manager of the Hinkley point site with 4 operational nuclear reactors. i therefore have experience of the industry since the early 60's which also includes international work. i live in Somerset and have an interest in the development in the Hinkley site. I support the proposal to build a new nuclear station at Hinkley Point and set out below some general point for your consideration. They include issues that are frequently raised by objectors. 1 Need It is clear that a reliable continuous supply of electricity is essential for a viable and successful economy. However, the UK’s medium term supply situation is dire (as the ageing fossil and nuclear stations shut down) and new generation capacity is needed urgently, any new capacity must also meet the Govt. policy on climate change and carbon emission reduction. Nuclear power meets these criteria and is the only proven large scale generator of low-carbon energy. It provides reliable, sustainable electricity at the most economic cost. 2 Environment The EU and Govt. policy on climate change and carbon emission reduction is very challenging indeed- 50% cut in carbon emissions by the mid 2020’s. There is a high reliance on renewable energy and on wind generation in particular. However, renewable energy sources produce power intermittently, they cannot replace gas, coal or nuclear power as a major generator of electricity.For example, the average expected load factor of our wind turbines is only about 20%. It follows that the power short fall can only be met by gas (carbon emission problems) or nuclear. Clearly the additional capacity required results in a much higher cost and increased carbon emissions. 3 Economics Over the last few years there have been a number of studies into the cost of future electricity generation by, for example the EU, OECD, IAEA, Govt. and independent institutions. All have shown that on a levelised cost basis, nuclear is the cheapest and off-shore wind is the most expensive; the difference is at least at factor of x2, and this has been recently confirmed by a Govt. study (DECC)in 2011. There also other factors that increase this difference even more e.g. the cost of developing the grid infrastructure to get the power onshore. Nuclear power is the most secure and the most economic source of low carbon electricity. 4 Safety and Public Acceptability There are clearly risks associated with nuclear power, but these have always been addressed with the result that nuclear power in the UK has an excellent safety record. The reactors have been inspected, modified and upgraded on a continual basis to meet changing and increased safety standards. Vast amounts of data and knowledge have been fed back into this continuous improvement programme. Importantly this has also been fed back into new plant designs, with the result that reactors such as that proposed at Hinkley C offer standards of safety well beyond those of plants built in the past. Additionally the regulatory and licensing requirements by the UK’s Nuclear Inspector, is one of the most stringent in the world. In thousands of years of reactor operations worldwide there have been three nuclear accidents. The worst in nuclear terms was Chernobyl, which resulted in a wide spread of radio activity and unfortunately around 50 deaths from the workers involved at the time. The recent accident at Fukushima, resulting from an earthquake of magnitude 9 on the Richter scale and an associated 14 metre tsunami was a commercial disaster, with only a relatively small release of radio activity. These accidents, although much smaller on their total effect within the community area than other large industrial accidents we have experienced, nevertheless undermines public confidence in the safety of nuclear power and lessons learned and modifications made across the world have to be followed through thoroughly to regain lost support. The World’s Nuclear Regulators have a key role to play in this. 5 Local Issues and Benefits There has been a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point for many years and I think that the local community and the stations have worked together in an open and productive way over the years. The station has of course provided jobs and support to the community over that time and good relations have ensued. I am sure that most people are supportive of the current proposal, but it is a characteristic of the British people that those who do not agree with proposed changes, developments and so on will make their voice heard (the Nimby approach) and those who agree say very little. EDF Energy have consulted the local community on a whole range of issues over the last couple of years, and have responded and changed details of the build logistics that would affect them. I judge that this has been a well run exercise with local people having every opportunity to input their views. As I understand it, the benefits of Hinkley Point C to the area are immense. With about 5,000 construction jobs for local people, an input of £100 million per year to the Regional economy, investment in local colleges and training programmes, improved leisure facilities, financial support for local public services and so on. Once built, the station is designed to operate for 60 years, and there will be significant operation jobs for local people and of course the annual income generation for the benefit of the community. 6 Conclusion Hinkley Point C is a very large engineering project, which will add considerable financial benefit to the nation and to the local community for years to come, providing secure low-carbon energy. I fully support the proposal."

Kenneth Cooper
"There should be a new road to Hinkley direct from the Motorway system."

Linda Davies
"I am utterly dismayed that you are even contemplating using overhead pylons rather than 'undergrounding' the cabling from the proposed Hinkley C nuclear power station to Avonmouth. If, as I have read, the additional cost is a measly 56p per month, or less than £7 per year, per household, then that is NOTHING when compared with what the cost would be to our vital tourist industry. My own adult children, when visiting from London, refuse to walk routes where there are pylons, and would certainly not pay to visit an area where pylons were strung along the horizon. Paying so little to protect our beautiful landscape would be something I'm sure most residents in the county would happily agree to. 'Undergrounding' may make repairs more difficult and costly, but surely they will be needed less frequently? The cables will not be subject to storm damage of any kind, or damage from birds, and they will be safer from terrorists. Geological damage and archeological damage must surely be a minimal risk? And you are considering damaging a confirmed asset to our land - an Area of Outstanding Beauty - for an uncertain asset - a yet to be discovered archeological site. 'Undergrounding' might, indeed, ascertain whether or not there is such a site. I beg you to reconsider and not do irreparable damage to our landscape for the sake of a relatively small sum of money."

Cumbria County Council
"RGE/A.193 1. These comments on behalf of Cumbria County Council are about Low Level Radioactive Waste management issues and mainly relate to section 7.3 of Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement. The comments are also based on representations that have been made to Somerset County Council in connection with its Minerals and Waste Development Framework draft Waste Core Strategy. 2. Both the Hinkley Point C proposals and the Somerset Waste Core Strategy refer only to the treatment and interim storage of radioactive wastes and make no provision for their disposal. They both rely on the willingness and ability of other parts of the country to accept their radioactive wastes, particularly the lower activity wastes. 3. Cumbria has been on the receiving end of such assumptions for a long time and it is considered that they are unsustainable and conflict with national policy. Cumbria will have considerable difficulties in providing for the management of radioactive wastes that arise within the county without the added burden of trying to host facilities for other parts of the country. 4. In the opinion of this authority, the Hinkley Point C proposals and Somerset’s draft development plan do not accord with the Key Planning Objective in PPS10 that communities take more responsibility for their own waste or with its decision-making principle, for all planning strategies, of providing sufficient opportunities to meet the identified needs of the area for the management of all its waste streams.. 5. It is understood that Somerset County Council has had pre-application discussions about a detailed proposal for an on-site LLW disposal facility for the existing Hinkley Point stations. The current status of that proposal is not known. 6. In the opinion of this authority, that on-site proposal needs to be brought into the public arena. The alternative that it provides needs to be considered in the Environmental Statement with the added context of the LLW that would arise from the new power station. 7. This authority also considers that the Hinkley Point C Environmental Statement needs to provide more detailed information, than is in Tables 7.2 and 7.3, about the different categories of radioactive wastes that would arise. This would include estimates of their volumes, when they are anticipated to arise and the waste management and disposal options that are potentially available for them. 8. The Hinkley Point C Environmental Statement makes references to disposals to the Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) near Drigg in Cumbria, Table 7.2 and paragraph 7.3.27 are examples. 9. What needs to be understood is that there is no capacity at the LLWR for disposal of these wastes. Apart from a very small amount of capacity in an older disposal facility, the only permitted capacity is for temporary storage until 2018 when the current planning permission requires that the wastes be removed. 10. A planning application has been submitted for disposal facilities at the Repository but it cannot be assumed that planning permission will be granted. 11. Although paragraph 7.3.16 states that disposal to the LLWR in Cumbria is seen as the least desirable option, that is only when assessed against the waste hierarchy not against alternative disposal options. 12. One conclusion that can be drawn, after considering the published documents, is that decisions based on the Hinkley Point C Environmental Statement could be vulnerable to legal challenge. It assumes the availability of waste facilities that do not exist and it has not identified or adequately assessed alternatives."

Julia Seacroft
"my objection is to the idea that cannington high street should be used as main access for EDF heavy lorries .We aready see heavy lorries using the high street some at speeds that seem dangerious. The high street is much used mothers and children tooing and frowing to local schools and shops as well as the elderly and infirm out for pleasent walk or a breath of FRESH air, not exhaust fumes. Surely peoples well being has to stand for something even in this age `just give us the money`"

Richard Carder
"EMERGENCY PLANNING - Inadequate planning for protecting population in vicinity and beyond from a serious incident, whether due to human error, technical failure, malicious attack, natural events, or a combination thereof. - In an emergency, evacuation via a single, narrow road would be problematic. - No evacuation procedure in place for the workers in case of incident at Hinkley B whilst Hinkley C is under construction. - Weaknesses in off-site emergency communications plan, which could delay an immediate large-scale response by several hours. - No clear provision for level of manpower and emergency service resources that would need to be immediately available. FLOOD RISK - There is a 100-year flood risk in this area, and spent fuel would be stored on site for at least 160 years. - Inadequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforeseen tidal wave event. - Such events have occurred before locally, e.g. in 1607, and cannot be ruled out in future. - In particular, depletion of ice mass in polar regions due to global warming may lead to increased seismic activity in future, plus sea levels are expected to rise. PROBLEMS WITH EDF NUCLEAR BUILDS / EPR DESIGN - Four existing EPR projects are all experiencing design and construction problems, at Flamanville 3 (France), Olkiluoto 3 (Finland) and Taishan 1 & 2 (China). - To date, no reactor of EPR design has been completed anywhere in the world. Unresolved design issues remain, concerns having been expressed by nuclear regulators in UK, France and Finland. WASTE / SPENT FUEL - Inadequate planning for management of radioactive waste produced by the proposed facility. - High-level spent fuel storage on site (for at least 160 years): not had this previously at Hinkley; an unacceptable burden to place on present and future generations. - Spent fuel would be much hotter and more radioactive than with earlier reactor designs. How would it be cooled? - Storage area ponds not yet designed. - Hinkley thought to only have a 7-year spent fuel storage capacity. - Prolonged storage of such waste on-site, with no viable final disposal solution in the UK or anywhere in the world, exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other incidents. This is negligent towards future generations, who must continue to manage the waste. It furthermore assumes they will have the information and social and physical resources necessary to ensure safe containment for millennia to come. EFFECTS ON LANDSCAPE, BIODIVERSITY AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENT - Radioactive contamination of the land - ref: Green Audit report http://stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf - Hinkley Point includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is situated within the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve, overlooks the Severn Estuary RAMSAR site, and neighbours the Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - The Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) target is to have 95% of the SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. - Removal of woodlands and hedges would affect habitat for a variety of flora and fauna, including protected species. - Since the site and locality are of such ecological, scientific and aesthetic importance, they would be inappropriate for such a development, which would undermine their protected status as well as their recreational value. HEALTH CONSEQUENCES - The impact of chronic low-level radiation exposure on public health and local ecology is being ignored. - Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in the estuary, e.g. Bridgwater Bay mudflats. - Monitoring and reporting of radioactive discharges is inadequate (public is only given annual average figures). - Public health issues, e.g. Burnham-on-Sea, downwind of Hinkley – cancer clusters."

Carolyn Thompson
"There are a few points I would like to make on the proposed nuclear power station. The government made a commitment not to subsidise nuclear power because cleaning up after Britain's older nuclear stations, (that includes Hinkley Point), costs billions. However, such subsidies already happen with the ongoing decommissioning of nuclear power stations with the estimated cost of between £80bn to £160bn two years ago for all 20 nuclear plants. What happens to the future decommissioning costs when the next reactors come to the end of their life? Secondly, it seems as if the government has been less than honest about the subject of subsidies. They are proposing contracts under which there would be a fixed price for electricity from non-carbon sources. This would work brilliantly for nuclear power but not for environmentally friendly generation as in off shore wind farms so it seems that nuclear power will still need to be funded by massive taxpayer handouts. This would also have the effect of making electricity market reform fundamentally dishonest. In addition to this, since the Fukushima disaster in Japan, many of the countries around the world have changed their energy plans, including Germany, who is already far ahead of Britain in terms of creating green energy and cutting back on their carbon footprint. Japan too is ending its reliance on nuclear power. This has led to a freeze in the international trade of reprocessed nuclear fuel which the government has factored in as being critical to solving our plutonium problem. Finally, what are the plans about the highly dangerous waste products from the nuclear plants? We will have about 109 tonnes of plutonium stockpile, which by all accounts remains radioactive for thousands of years - talk about selling our children down the river. An afterthought - a leaked US memo called Sellafield's Mox plant a white elephant costing taxpayers £90million a year. What are your predictions for Hinkley Point? Another afterthought - given the nuclear fuels appalling record on reporting truthfully on accidents or safety procedures, what guarantee do we have that such lies belong in the past?"

Ian Cohen
"Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from rising sea levels (as a result of climate change). There is also the possibility of a tidal wave causing similar damage, these have occurred before in this area and cannot be ruled out in future, especially given the possibility that the depletion of the ice sheets at the earth's poles (also resulting from climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. There is also a lack of adequate planning for protecting the people of Somerset, North Devon and South Wales, from harm in the event of a major incident, whether caused by human error, terrorist attack, technical failure or natural events.The emergency response strategy is inadequate and likely to result in several hours of delay before the levels of emergency personnel and equipment needed to cope with the potential numbers of dead and injured would be available. EDF, as the planning applicants, have a duty of care to the local population for which their proposals are inadequate. The enourmous costs of covering for the shortcomings in their plans will inevitably have to be picked up by both local and national government. I also have concerns about their plans for the disposal of the radio active waste produced by the power station. Proposals to keep it at the plant with no arrangements for it's eventual removal leaves the local population vulnerable to possible contamination through flooding or other incidents, as well as leaving a toxic legacy to be contained for hundreds of years."

Scott Sealey
"Following the publication of the plans for the new power station at Hinkley point I note the proposed development of the accommodation blocks within Bridgwater specifically the development on the old Cellophane site. I am a member of teh Bridgwater Sports Football Club, who have been using the playing fields that the complex will be built on for 75 years . The football club runs three sides and has in excess of 70+ members. In addition a number of other adult football teams use teh facility, as well as youth teams from ages of 7 through to 16 years of age. I am concerned that there appears to be no consideration for future playing fields that will allow all these users to continue their activities. I would request that full consideration be given to include providing at minimum the same area of playing fields and facilities (2 good sized football pitches plus a clubhouse and changing rooms) , and that these should be in place and usable before the existing areas and provision is stopped by this development. Any interruption of availability would have a devastating effect on the area and people that use it. To be clear, any preplanning or planning application must ensure that the green areas used within the Bridgwater sports and social club grounds should be replaced with equivalent or better facilities and be 100% operational before the existing provision is removed or developed."

Brian Rowe
"My concern is the transport infrastructure of the surounding area of Bridgwater and my village of Chilton Trinity."

Carole Taylor
"Our property is adjacent to the road from Cannington to Hinckly Point, the C192 I believe and will overlook the proposed by pass and associated road improvements. We have concerns about the transport links to the Power Station site not being sufficient for the trafffic that will have to use them. A by pass from Bridgwater directly to the site would have solved the issues more completely. However if the current proposals go a head we have the following specific points to raise for consideration: There is no speed limit on the C192 and no safe crossing of this road to get from Putnell to the side with the footpath. Traffic already speeds and we have noticed an increase in traffic since the works started on the site, making crossing this road muc more difficult especially in the morning. The school bus picks up at Rodway farm and so no safe passage for children across this road to the bus stop. Steadings Lane will be cut off from Cannington. This is currently the safe pedestrian route to the village. The increase in traffic on the C192 with no crossing by our houses will leave no safe option. This lane is currently used as an amenity for horses, walkers and cyclists and connects to other footpaths. This amenity and connection will be lost. There seems to be more concideration in the plans for wildlife crossing at the Eastern end of the proposed bypass than for people. An option would be to add a central reservation to allow half way across the road crossing to be done on the C192 and by the proposed enternece on to the bypass for the Castle Hill Quarry traffic. If cycling to Hinckly Point is to be encouraged why is there no plan to add a cycle path all the way to Bridgwater from the site?"

Peter R Phillips
"I believe that the application for Hinkley Point C is a positive move for the future of Somerset. This is on the basis of replacement of Electricity generation by Nuclear means in the locality that already has two previous types of Nuclear reactors. The locality already has a workforce of nuclear qualified and experienced persons, who will be able to man the proposed site. The infrastructure for building and operating the plant is to some extent already there, with reasonably good road links, proximity to the rail head at Bridgwater and proximity to docks facilities at Combwich. Improvements to the local road system, especially around Cannington and Bridgwater would be welcomed to help the resultant increase in traffic flow, and the inclusion of a jetty into Bridgwater Bay would be of further assistance. A further improvement to traffic management would be to stagger deliveries to the site and to avoid the main start and finish times of the neighbouring sites (Hinkley Point A & B). Another way of reducing the pressure on the local roads is to employ a Park and Ride system for the C site construction workers and the existing workforce of Hinkley Point A & B. Whilst the site is under construction it will provide a great financial boost to the area for local businesses and support services. There is also the advantage of longer term quality jobs during the operational life of the site, providing employment for future school leavers."

Alicia Aras
"I am against nuclear power and feel there are safer ways to produce our energy needs. I feel the risks to the local community and nature are enormous. There are environmental concerns of nuclear waste leaks from fire, flooding, terrorism amongst others. If the scheme does go ahead there are huge issues with housing, noise, pollution, traffic congestion and the local infrastructure. Alicia Aras"

Claire Slatcher
"The construction of another nuclear power plant in my county is an unwanted and environmentally unsound development. There is no provision in the plans to deal with radioactive waste that will be harmful to human health for 100,000 years. What exactly are we to do with this waste? Already the waste from Hincley is transported through the country on trains - are we to add more to this load? The rail network is already overloaded and under-funded. The government wants to provide low carbon and carbon free energy, however nuclear power is not low carbon. When you think of the amount of energy used to store and process the waste - for a very long time - this is not an efficient use of our energy supplies or resources. Furthermore the continual possible contamination of the local environment, people and wildlife presents another concern. However well engineered, however well developed we build these power plants, they are not foolproof. There are lukemia clusters in Ireland that correlate with nuclear power plants in Britain. There are cancer clusters in the UK that correlate with the locations of nuclear power stations. Nuclear power is simply not safe or sensible. This power station is not wanted in the county by the people who live here. We do not want to be further contaminated. We do not want more development of our beautiful county. The jobs provided will not be given to local people - the plant will require trained specialists, not provide jobs for the local economy. This is shown in the fact that the development provides accomodation on site for the employees. Thus the development will put pressure on local resourses such as healthcare and transport, yet do nothing to benefit the local population or economy. Nuclear power is not safe - the earthquake in Japan proved that."

Roger Langford
"First let me say that I fully support the Government's decision to build ten new nuclear power stations. My complaint is with EDF. The power station will be built using uranium nuclear reactors. Uranium reactors are old technology. There is a far better nuclear technology Thorium. Thorium is the nuclear technology for the future. Which is why, in my opinion, EDF should use the 10 billion pounds it is going to spend to build Hinkley Point C on building the first thorium nuclear reactor power station in Europe. Thorium nuclear power stations are very cost effective, the more you build the cheaper they are to build. The first one may cost 10 billion, the second will cost less than 10 billion and it has been estimated that the third and subsequent power stations could be built for less than two billion pounds each. So if EDF build ten uranium power stations at today's cost of 10 billion each that totals 100 billion pounds. If EDF chose instead to build thorium power stations the total cost for ten stations, at today's prices, would be less than 36 billion pounds, a saving of 64 billion pounds. By building thorium power stations EDF could reduce their costs by 64 billion pounds and so provide British industry with a plentiful supply of cheap electricity which would help to make our manufacturing industry more competitive."

Julian Mellor
"The economic impact of the development has not been adequately addressed in the application. The environmental and landscape impact of the development has not been adequately addressed in the application. The social impact of the development has not been adequately addressed in the application. The equalities impact of the development has not been adequately addressed in the application. Furthermore, I do not believe that the proposed development is justified, necessary or appropriate in this location."

English Heritage
"English Heritage wishes to put in an objection on the basis of the representation below. However we also wish to reserve the right to withdraw our views should we reach an agreement on these points with the applicants prioir to the examination going ahead: 1. We wish to ensure that the Conditions that we have requested for the Temporary Jetty through the MMO licencing proceedure, should be attached to the DCO for the temporary jetty should the MMO not grant permission. 2. That the Monument Managment Plan for Wick Barrow- a scheduled monument- has been updated and finalised to include the investigation of the archive, with a range of options and research aims and agreed to the satisfaction of English Heritage and Somerset County Council Archaeologists. 3. That the impacts upon the various heritage assets from the associated development of Cannington Bypass need to be more robustly covered, in particular in terms of the impact on Brymore House and its associated heritage assets. We contend that as a complex of heritage assets within an historic landscape the setting of this complex will be adversely impacted upon and that further mitigation should be considered. The severance of the main school driveway -the historic entrance into the site by the proposed road should entail the need for a broader approach to its mitigation including the enhancement of the existing school's garden and landscaping."

Andrew Taylor
"I am concerned about the traffic chaos that this proposal will bring to the area. The proposed Cannington bypass junction changes will not alleviate the problems that an increase in traffic will bring. We are already seeing the increase in traffic on the C192 especially in the mornings. A bypass for Bridgwater would help alleviate this. Living by the C192 on Steadings Lane we are concerned that there are no safe crossings proposed either on the eastern end of the proposed by pass or across the C192 by Rodway Farm. As Steadings Lane will be cut off we have no safe pedestrian route into Cannington without crossing these roads. The C192 will not have a speed limit to try to reduce the traffic speed after the roundabout. The speed is now too high, I know because asa family we have to try to cross the road regularly particulary our son who cathces the Haygrove school bus at Rodway Farm."

Maureen Smith
"I am West Somerset Disrtict Cuncillor and consider that the continued development of nuclear poower plants at Hinlkely pose a very serious threat to the population and the future of the area. As we all know Nuclear plants are vunerable to accidents and to attack, especially from the air, and the lerge scale evacuation of the area is impossible. In additon the contamination caused would render the area unsusable for food production far into the furture,"

Anne Suddaby
"The applications traffic analysis has not been adequate, the results of any work undertaken by the applicant have not been communicated sufficiently to the public other than to tell the people what the applicant wants the public to hear. The applicants 'consultative process' has not really sort the views of the public about the application but rather sort to tell the public what will happen with regard to the application particularly where traffic issues are concerned. The 'improvements' the application suggests for Bridgwater and the surrounding area do not go far enough to mitigate for the disruption the development will create and the applicants refusal to consider a route directly to the site is totally remiss of the applicant. In response to a petition calling for a Bridgwater Northern Bypass, Sedgemoor District Council called a public meeting of their Community Scrutiny Committee on 10th August 2011 and this meeting unanimously made the following request of the applicant. “The Scrutiny committee urges EDF not to submit a Development Consent Application to the IPC until such time as EDF have robustly and comprehensively assessed traffic impact and means to mitigate it, including a truly comparative assessment of a Northern By-pass and online improvements, to the satisfaction of the Local Authorities.” This was unanimously endorsed by the full Sedgemoor District Council Executive on 24th August 2011 however it has been totally ignored by the applicant to such an extent that the local authorities have commissioned their own study into the feasibility of a Bridgwater Northern Bypass which has not yet been published. This application should not be approved unit the traffic mitigation measures for the project are substantially reviewed."

Robert Godfrey
"The following information is gained from working in the nuclear industry in three countries over a twenty five year period, including periods operating and managing the operation of nuclear plant, studying nuclear incidents and accidents, human factors and nuclear safety culture, and international developments in nuclear reactor design and nuclear safety. I fully support the proposed construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. The proposed reactor design, the EPR, is arguably the world's most robust reactor design with regard to nuclear safety. The design has benefitted from the experience in operating several hundred nuclear reactors around the world over several decades, including the experience from accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, and has unique design features included to minimise the likelihood of accidents and to mitigate the consequences of accidents, should they occur. I consider the proponent of the project, EDF Energy, to be an operator of nuclear power stations which has applied world's best practice to the operation of it's stations, one which has demonstrated their commitment to safety, protection of the public and environment and continual improvement, one which manages risk so as to be As Low As Reasonably Practicable, and is a company which has adopted an open and honest approach to communication with stakeholders, including regulators and the public. Further, I consider the regulator, the Office of Nuclear Regulation of the Health and Safety Executive, to be a robust nuclear regulator, and an organisation which also adopts and applies international best practice. I conclude that the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station can be constructed and operated safely throughout its life, will reliably provide CO2 free electricity with negligible impact on the environment, and will have a significant economical impact to the region during construction and throughout its life."

Leon Suddaby
"The applications traffic analysis has not been adequate, the results of any work undertaken by the applicant have not been communicated sufficiently to the public other than to tell the people what the applicant wants the public to hear. The applicants 'consultative process' has not really sort the views of the public about the application but rather sort to tell the public what will happen with regard to the application particularly where traffic issues are concerned. The 'improvements' the application suggests for Bridgwater and the surrounding area do not go far enough to mitigate for the disruption the development will create and the applicants refusal to consider a route directly to the site is totally remiss of the applicant. In response to a petition calling for a Bridgwater Northern Bypass, Sedgemoor District Council called a public meeting of their Community Scrutiny Committee on 10th August 2011 and this meeting unanimously made the following request of the applicant. “The Scrutiny committee urges EDF not to submit a Development Consent Application to the IPC until such time as EDF have robustly and comprehensively assessed traffic impact and means to mitigate it, including a truly comparative assessment of a Northern By-pass and online improvements, to the satisfaction of the Local Authorities.” This was unanimously endorsed by the full Sedgemoor District Council Executive on 24th August 2011 however it has been totally ignored by the applicant to such an extent that the local authorities have commissioned their own study into the feasibility of a Bridgwater Northern Bypass which has not yet been published. This application should not be approved unit the traffic mitigation measures for the project are substantially reviewed."

Robin Maynard Seaver
"The development of Hinckley C with a new power station would have a profound effect on this rural area and the roads and access issues need to be more carefully considered. From the presentations that i have attended, i do not think that the reality of traffic numbers and consequences has been taken into account. In witnessing the recent disaster in Japan, we must design transportation systems for worst cases scenarios: this is the responsible thing to do. Please look very carefully, look very honestly, at the requirements to provide good and safe access to and from the immediate region given an emergency. If it is not possible to do that, then this project should not go forward until the problem is resolved."

Nicholas Davies
"I am strongly against the use of overland pylons for this project. Any cabling should be underground so as not to ruin the Somerset landscape. The tourism industry in Somerset will suffer greatly if what is now a beautiful tourist attraction is destroyed. As an electricity consumer I am more than willing to bear the extra cost involved. As an EDF customer I will be switching to another supplier if this project goes ahead with overhead power cabling across Somerset."

P.M.Braine
"As a one time resident of Cannington and Bridgwater and now a frequent visitor to Bridgwater, I am most concerned that the planning application for the new power station does not include a northern relief road to the town. I support recent representations made by the Town and Sedgemoor Councils alerting EDF to traffic already choking the town. And proposals, made I believe by Somerst County Council Highways, for relieving the position by marginal improvements (round-abouts etc) are totally inadequate: they can take no account of the resulting population growth and construction traffic. Whatever one's views are on nuclear power, no planning application for a project of of this size can be considered dispassionately and on its merits if it continues to take no account of the disastrous effect of the increased traffic on Bridgwater and its immediate environment. The building of a northern by-pass must therefore form an integral part of the application, the cost of which, though significant, would represent only a small proportion of the overall cost and be soon offset by savings in time and earnings lost in choked traffic, not to mentions lives if quick access for paramedics in accident emergencies is denied,."

Mai Suzuki
"We are from Japan, and we want to object to the plans to build a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point. We want to explain what happened in our country and help you avoid similar disasters in the UK. The Fukushima disaster showed us just how risky nuclear power can be. Nothing can prepare you for a disaster like that. Japan is one of the most technologically-advanced countries in the world, and we were always told it could not happen here. But it did. The whole country has been touched by this disaster. Radiation has spread far beyond Fukushima prefecture, contaminated food has been shipped all over the country, and as thousands have been forced to leave their homes, the social fabric of our country has been significantly disrupted. In some ways, the psychological effect of the disaster is worse than the physical effects, and both will affect people here for decades. A year later, Fukushima has disappeared from the headlines, but more serious problems are discovered almost daily. Unacceptably high levels of radiation have been recorded at many schools throughout Fukushima, decontamination work is haphazard, slow, and often inadequate, and yet despite these issues our government is rushing to bring our nuclear plants back online without properly assessing risks, safety, or improving emergency plans – which have been proven to be insufficient and far too optimistic. We couldn’t avoid the natural disaster, but the nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi were both foreseeable and avoidable. If the nuclear industry had planned properly, the disaster would have been less serious. Instead we are left with an almost insurmountable clean up problem, and this is taking away resources which could otherwise have been used to help people recover from the earthquake and tsunami. As the disaster unfolded, it became clear that the government and the nuclear industry were not being honest with us. They downplayed the impacts and told us everything was okay. But as new updates emerged they kept changing their story. It was almost impossible to tell what was really going on, which only made the situation worse. The cost of dealing with the disaster is unclear. But what is clear is that TEPCO cannot afford to pay for the damage it has caused. Instead, Japanese taxpayers will have to pay to clean up TEPCO’s mess. I understand that people living near Hinkley have concerns about the quality of the flood protection, the emergency response plans and other important safety features. As we have seen first-hand, the safety measures deployed at nuclear facilities do not match the risks they pose to the population, and nuclear operators will always try to minimise cost at the expense of safety. As we have seen in Japan, the benefits of nuclear are far outweighed by the risks. No new plants should be built anywhere in the world until we have a clear understanding of the causes and consequences of the Fukushima disaster, until there is greater transparency from the government and industry, and certainly not until nuclear operators are made both responsible and liable for any and all negative effects their plants have on surrounding communities. I therefore ask you to reject this application for a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point."

Sheena Coats on behalf of Malcolm Porch
"I disagree with EDF's proposed plans. If EDF get the go-head, the next three years for a by-passless Canninngton will be horrendous and intolerable. Apart from the massive increase in vehicles in the village that this project will bring, the grain lorries and tractors during harvest time travelling up and down Rodway Hill every few minutes will cause chaos. EDF don't seem to have made any representation regarding the few hundred yards from the village end of the C189 to the top of the hill. I wonder why. This is a College active area with car parks both sides of the hill for approximately 200+ vehicles and pedestrian movement across the hill at any point. If EDF is given the go-ahead now, the situation in Cannington will become even more dangerous than it is now. EDF's plans no where near meet an acceptable level of safety or tolerance for a project of this magnitude either in Cannington or Bridgwater."

Jean McSorley
"I wish to object to the application by NNB Genco/EDF Energy to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. I wish to register as an interested party for the upcoming examination. The following comments would be expanded on further in written or oral evidence. Concerns are raised on the potential of the cumulative risks from reactor operations, and those of spent fuel management (storage and encapsultation) and how these could impact on the implementation of an emergency plan for the Hinkley area following an accident or malicious act leading to a release of radioactivity. This is raised in the context of Government policy as stated in the Nuclear National Policy Statement and The Government Response to the Consultation on revised Funded Decommissioning Programme Guidance for New Nuclear Power Stations (Dec 2011). These state it is expected the life time arisings of spent fuel from the proposed reactor(s) will be stored at the reactor site, and raised the possibility that spent fuel might also be encapsulated on-site, prior to transport to a disposal site. Key issues are: The total radioactive inventory of a life-time arising of spent fuel from reactor operations stored on-site for up to 100 years, beyond reactor closure, and the risks of storage of spent nuclear fuel if there is an accident/malicious at the site The combination of the potential radiological impact of a release of radioactive contamination from a reactor and/or spent fuel store (which could only be a fraction of the total inventory) How plans for encapsulation, in particular this secondary handling of spent fuel, is planned for at the site and how this is factored into longer term emergency planning post reactor closure. The above in turn leads to questions on the potential impact on workers and the public in a radiological emergency: These include: the significant disparity between 'routine' radiation doses to the public (constraints and recommended dose limits as well as legal limits) and those which might arise as the result of an accident/malicous act the impact of radiation doses to workers on-site and local authority/national agency emergency service personnel (on and off site) and legal dose limits 'versus' those permitted during an emergency situation the ability of all relevant authorities to cope with a major release and the impact of radiation doses in relation to countermeasures and, where relevant, emergency plan implementation in the immediate and longer term phases. The ability to implement the measures in an emergency plan in the event of a malicious act, and if such a plan can be implemented in such a situation. These issues are raised in the context of advice and recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the Health Protection Agency and the National Emergency Planning Liaison Group and the same, including legislation, from the Office of Nuclear Regulation"

Sarah Lasenby
"I do not think that the true risks are being considered specially to young children and the unborn who are much more susceptible to radiation damage. Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforeseen tidal wave event. Such events have occurred before in this area and cannot reasonably be ruled out in future, especially in light of the theoretical possibility that the depletion of ice mass at the earth's poles (caused by climate change) will lead to increased seismic activity in the next few centuries. Furthermore, there is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset , Devon and South Wales , including my friends, from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. The radiation in the vicinity of Fukushima is not being taken seriously and we should have much more protection not less. Actually the project would be better not undertaken. And what of the problems of disposal of the waste ? Where will it be stored long term ?"

Karalina Matskevich
"I own a property 15 miles from Hinkley Point, close to the Quantocks Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I think the environmental impact of more nuclear power is going to be detrimental to this unique part of Britain, its land and sea habitats, and to the long-term health of the population. I was born in Belarus and have first-hand experience of the health effects of low-level radiation. I know about the results of cancer studies in Burnham-on-Sea, downwind from Hinkley, and do not feel it can be justified to endanger more people and especially the generations to come in the name of cheeper energy. The risk of flooding, terrorism, and of human error is too high, especially with the plans to store the waste on site for 100 years or more."

Caroline Lucas MP
"I am writing to object to proposals to build a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point for the following reasons: - the mining and milling of uranium for nuclear fuel is an environmentally hazardous process, creating huge volumes of toxic tailing wastes, and endangers human health - the irradiation of nuclear fuel creates both high activity radiotoxic wastes, for which no long term management route has been demonstrated; and plutonium, which creates major security concerns and provides opportunities for malevolent terrorist misuse - the routine operation of nuclear power plants discharges hazardous radioactive liquids and gases into the environment - the consequences of an accident, disaster or deliberate sabotage, whatever the risk level, are so grave that it is better to remove that risk entirely The IPC should examine these issues in depth. For the purposes of this submission I want to concentrate on concerns over the impacts on the local ecology and biodiversity. The Hinkley site is located adjacent to the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Severn Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Severn Estuary Ramsar site. The site also adjoins Bridgewater Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserve. I draw attention to a relevant section of the National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6) Volume II – Annexes, in which I have highlighted some key text: C.5.81 […]. The key findings of the Hinkley Point Appraisal of Sustainability and Habitats Regulations Assessment highlight areas of significance on, amongst other things: i) potential negative effects on protected conservation sites and designated species, including the Severn Estuary and the Bridgwater Bay; C.5.84 The site Appraisal of Sustainability report for Hinkley Point identifies that the potential for major adverse effects on sites and species considered of UK-wide and European nature conservation importance means that strategic significant effects on biodiversity cannot be ruled out…[…]. For Hinkley Point, the European Sites that are at most risk from interactions are the Severn Estuary SAC, SPA and Ramsar sites, the River Wye SAC and the River Usk SAC which have also been identified as potentially being significantly adversely affected by the nominated site at Oldbury. The potential effects on the European Sites from both the Hinkley Point and Oldbury developments are due to adverse effects on water quality and resources, habitat loss and coastal squeeze and disturbance. Furthermore, in DECC’s revised Appraisal of Sustainability for the Hinkley Point site, dated October 2010, serious concerns about biodiversity are also raised: 9. Hinkley Point County Wildlife Site and its local network of hedgerows, woodland, grassland, arable fields and scrub, and locally important populations of breeding birds (including Nightingale), butterflies and other invertebrates, Badgers, and possibly reptiles, is likely to be subject to the direct loss of habitats, severance of wildlife corridors, and disturbance, as noted above. These losses may adversely affect ecological networks within the locality for mobile protected species reliant on wildlife corridors and wider connectivity within the landscape. (my emphasis) [http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/consents-planning/nps2011/1968-appendices-to-aos-hinkley-point-en6.pdf] These concerns over local ecology and biodiversity add to the case against a new nuclear plant at Hinkley. Instead of new nuclear plants, a Government-backed programme of energy saving and clean renewable energy would combat climate change and avoid the risks of a catastrophic accident, dangers to health and the storage of highly radioactive waste. Finally, I would also like to endorse the arguments set out by the Greenpeace UK submission to IPC registering its concerns. Caroline Lucas MP for Brighton Pavilion, January 2012"

Nether Stowey Parish Council
"Nether Stowey is a designated Key Rural Settlement with retail and and public services, and a population of about 1400. The village is located 4 miles from the Hinkley Point C application site. Nether Stowey has a long standing and positive connection with the Hinkley Point power stations, many residents working or having previously worked at the A and B stations. The Parish Council is, therefore, well placed to understand the potential impacts of the proposed Hinkley Point C power station. The Parish Council has welcomed the proposed development of Hinkley Point C as a significant and positive investment in the area. The Parish Council has no comments to make about the main development site but wishes to raise concerns about the general impact of the project and specific concerns about the associated off site infrastructure proposals. The Parish Council will make detailed written representation on the following matters: • The impact of the proposed development, on the village of Nether Stowey, from the activity associated with a protracted, major construction project (e.g. influx of migrant workers to the area; demand for residential accommodation; community safety; impact on local tourism; increased traffic and congestion). • The Parish Council has major concerns about the applicant’s transport strategy, including the proposed park and ride locations, transport routes to and from the power station site and proposed highway works."

Barry Turner
"I disagree with the suitability of the site location due to its vulnerability to the effects of flooding and storm surge over the very long timescales during which it must be safely protected. Government projections only extend for 100 years. Beyond this time there are no agreed government predictions on the effects of global warming so the situation is currently unknown, yet effective site protection will be left for future generations to deal with for no benefit to them and at an unknowable cost to them. I disagree with the 'interim' storage of highly radioactive spent fuel on the site. This is currently predicted to be required for 100 to 160 years, but could be required indefinitely if no national repository is operational by that time. There is no way to guarantee that an effective repository will be operational by then or if indeed it will ever be possible. The site conditions are unknowable so far into the future as in the above paragraph. This is an unaccceptable burden on future generations. I do not agree with the current vague emergency planning arrangements for populations which could be affected if a serious emergency occurs. Effective plans covering a very wide area must be a prerequistite for any process which can cause such widespread and long term health risks and such widespread and long term evacuation of the population."

Nicholas Gibson
"The EDF(NNB) application to build the Hinkley Point C power station is unsafe and has not properly taken into account the lessons still to be learned from the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster. Safety Issues The application has been put in to the IPC, before it could have taken fully into account Dr. Weightman's findings and the ongoing studies looking for best international practice especially on the following topics for public safety. Flooding defence of the site. Emergency response planning. Maintenance of off site electricity supplies. Maintenance of continuous cooling water supplies. Transport infrastructure issues. EDF has not listened to the concerns about how the road infrastructure will not be able to cope with the huge increase in traffic congestion on these local rural roads with a construction project of this magnitude,(the largest building site in the UK!). EDF's transport plans are inadequate and unsafe, and will cause continuous traffic gridlock for long periods at the motorway junctions,through Bridgwater, along the A39, through Cannington and the neighbouring villages on this routeway. This traffic chaos will cause serious damage to Tourism, Farming and Businesses in the region along with a considerable deterioration in the quality of life for Somerset residents for at least ten years. This will also cause serious problems for the emergency services trying to reach accidents, fires and even evacuate workers and the public in the case of a major fire or radioactive plume release at the nuclear industrial complex. EDF's plans to modify the local road system will cause more problems than they will solve. EDF has not listened to local councils and the local resident's demands for assessing robustly alternative routes and dedicated bypasses which would improve the quality of life for the populations of Bridgwater and the villages on route. Consultation Issues. EDF's consultation process with the public has been a shambles which has meant a lot of the public have been shut out of a proper discussion and debate on the project. The public has been bombarded with huge volumes of technical information with very little time to absorb the details and participate effectively in a balanced democratic way. Scientific Monitoring. EDF has already admitted its calculations of asbestos levels contaminating the site are wrong, this does not instil the public with confidence about how EDF carries out its scientific monitoring. The Green Audit report questions EDF's ability to monitor and scientifically evaluate land contamination on the site of other contaminants, e.g. radioactive hazards that could have an important effect on the health and safety issues for people working at the site. EDF does not have a good record on health and safety with its workers in France. The power station will have long term damaging consequences for the ecology of the important ecological sites in the Severn Estuary with local,national and international significance which this project cannot adequately mitigate against. Local Employment Issues. Expectations of jobs for local people have been misleading and exaggerated, experience of building these reactors in Finland and France proves this point. Long term storage of Spent Fuel Issues. The problems of how to deal with the high level radioactive waste (spent fuel) produced during the operation of the unproven designs of reactor, non working anywhere in the world are not finalised. The storage of this waste on site for160 years causes much local concern as to how it will be kept safe from terrorist attack, and kept constantly cooled over this immense length of time. At present there is no final geological national depository for this waste, and probably never be, meaning that Somerset will become a permanent high level radioactive waste store – the “Sellafield of the south west of England.” Prematurity issues. EDF's plans are premature and there are many technical, legal and economic reasons why the power station may never be built. Planning approval should not be given while the GDA design assessment is not complete, several legal judicial review actions are still ongoing, and the costs of dealing with the long term waste storage and decommissioning have not been finalised. EDF have not confirmed they can raise the finances for such a costly project, and they have not properly assessed if it will be an economically viable project to build and run the power station. In the preliminary works application and at the Public Inquiry into building of the jetty, they admit they may never build the power station, and offer to reinstate the land."

Homes in Sedgemoor
"In supporting the application because of its importance to the national infrastructure and the Somerset economy the EDF Accommodation Strategy should, in part, be refocused to provide enduring accommodation and help to regenerate Bridgwater Town Centre. In so doing provide a legacy of much needed rental housing, all in partnership with local housing organizations. Lessons should be learnt from other major infrastructure projects e.g. the construction of the Channel Tunnel where campus style accommodation, although suitable for some, left no enduring legacy. More recent examples from the 2012 Olympics demonstrate more imaginative solutions. Hinkley Point C provides the opportunity to develop an imaginative, leading edge accommodation solution within existing budget constraints. The plan to use existing local accommodation by the EDF workforce should be stress tested to ensure its impact on the community, bed spaces and cost is thoroughly understood. That levers are in place to help control over demand for accommodation that may otherwise disadvantage the local population and tourism."

Kate Wood
"ENVIRIRONMENT:The impact on the quality of life for the thousands living in surrounding towns will be appalling for years during the construction stage. Up to 700 HGVs will thunder through towns daily. Traffic will be unbearable and possibly ruin the livelihoods of locals involved in eg., farming and tourism. It will also be environmentally catastrophic for this beautiful part of England since the whole area will be turned into the largest building site in the UK. DANGER: It's impossible to ensure industrial accidents will never happen. It's also impossible to predict what impact earth changes will have in that area eg., extraordinary earthquakes as in Fukushima, rising sea levels and giant waves. What evacuation procedures if any will EDF put in place for the millions who live well within the US recommended 50 mile exclusion zone? In the event of a serious accident this whole corner of England and Wales will be uninhabitable for decades - if not hundreds of years. WASTE STORAGE: There aren't even adequate storage facilities for the waste already generated - what on earth are EDF going to do with the mammoth load of new waste? HEALTH OF LOCAL POPULATION. EDF deny the raised levels of cancer in locals downwind of Hinkley - this does nothing to reassure the local population and may one day be proved criminally negligent in the law courts. MONEY: EDF already can't pay their way and owe the French Government billions. In the end it's the British public who will subsidise this company through ever higher fuel bills. Even the City warned British business not to touch this ompany with a barge poll!! EDF HAVE A VERY POOR REPUTATION: (1) as an energy provider whose customers are always complaining about the bad service. (2) as an employer whose employees are treated like slaves and prone to accidents owing to EDF's disregard of Health and Safety measures. (3) and as a constructor of nuclear power plants which run way over schedule and way over budget. Finally, PLEASE lets not throw our money away on this company but invest it SAFE, RENEWABLE, CLEAN and vastly cheaper sources of energy. We have the Bristol Channel on our doorstep with the 2nd highest tidal range in the world - lets use it to generate vaste quantities of energy and become an EXPORTER of electricity eg to France so we can make a profit and they won't build any more nuclear reactors. Let's remember our children and granchildren before making this decision."

CBI
"The proposed new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C will bring valuable benefits to the South West economy in terms of employment and skills both during the construction and later operation phase. The proposal represents major investment in energy generation which is badly needed. It is essential that solutions are put in place to ensure secure, low carbon, cost effective energy supplies and Hinckly Point C will make a welcome contribution to this agenda."

Quantock Cluster Parishes
"The Quantock Cluster is a federation of the 13 parishes located in the Sedgemoor District to the west of Bridgwater. The Quantock Cluster includes the following Parish Councils; Broomfield, Cannington, Chilton Trinity, Durleigh, Enmore, Fiddington, Goathurst, Nether Stowey, Otterhampton, Over Stowey, Spaxton, Stockland Bristol, Wembdon. This representation is made on behalf of the Quantock Cluster as a group and is addition to any and all representations made by the constituent Parish Councils. The Cluster area has a population of about 11,500 and covers the area between the power station site and Bridgwater and includes the location of the Combwich wharf, the Cannington park & ride area. The main road access to the power station site, the A39 and C182, runs through the Cluster Area. The Quantock Cluster is not opposed to the development of Hinkley Point C it does however have significant concerns about overall transport and traffic management strategy for the proposed development and will make detailed written representations on the following matters. • The proposed access arrangements for the development site, i.e. the use of the existing A39 & C182 as the sole means of accessing the power station site. • The proposed associated off site highway works • The timing of the construction of the proposed Cannington By Pass • The proposed operation of the Combwich Wharf • The location of the off-site park and ride and freight holding facilities The Quantock Cluster will also make written representations about the overall impact of the project on the communities in the immediate vicinity of the power station."

Parrett Internal Drainage Board
"The Parrett Internal Drainage Board is the Statutory Public Body responsible for ensuring drainage and surface water flooding are managed effectively within the defined boundary of the Boards area. The proposed development of the Hinkley Point C power station, and the majority of the off site works lie within the Boards area and are therefore of interest in so far as they may impact on the Boards, duties and functions. Byelaw 3 of the Parrett Internal Drainage Boards Byelaws, (Made under Paragraph 66 of the Land Drainage Act 1991), prohibits the introduction of any water into the Boards area without the consent of the Board. Byelaw 10 of the Parrett Internal Board Byelaws, (Made under Paragraph 66 of the Land Drainage Act 1991), prohibits the construction of any building or structures including landscaping within 9.0 metres of any watercourse other than Main River. We have engaged with the developer through the previous consultations and planning procedures and we believe that they have a comprehensive understanding of the Boards concerns and requirements associated with this development. However in summary we must ensure. 1. There is no increase in flood risk and that any flood alleviation and drainage proposals are built to at least the recommended national standards, and are future proofed against climate change. 2. Flood alleviation and drainage proposals should not adversely impact on the Boards ability to maintain and operate the surface water and drainage network. 3. Modifications to the surface water and drainage network, including open and culverted water courses, and any structures associated with surface water management must be agreed with the Board. 4. Future responsibility for operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of new and existing surface water and drainage infrastructure must be agreed with the Board and, adequate resources must be established to secure this for the life of the development. 5. Any proposals to modify the existing arrangements for surface water and drainage must not have an adverse impact on Environmental Matters, in particular the water dependant aspects of the adjoining areas. In particular 6. We understand that the watercourse known as West Brook / Holford Stream is to be culverted to allow the construction of the development. The Board currently maintains this watercourse but will not have the facilities to maintain the proposed culvert. Therefore adequate safeguards will need to be put in place to ensure its future management. 7. It is likely that increased surface water run-off (Flow and/or volume) will discharge into the Board’s area, from the main site and from the associated off site works. We will seek to ensure this is regulated to be no greater than the pre development situation, and that any drainage infrastructure to achieve this can be managed effectively in future."

Chris Jackman
"I support the application to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley point. I believe that Nuclear power should continue to be part of the energy mix in this country. My reasons for this are: Land take: The UK is small. Renewable projects by their nature need to be very large to produce equivalent amounts of power, with associated environmental impact. I would rather see a nuclear power station built than a River Severn tidal barrage. Environmental: Climate change aside, I would like to see coal phased out purely for air quality reasons and replaced with a combination of nuclear and gas generation. Nuclear is also low carbon, if you choose to accept the argument of man made climate change. Security of supply / diversity of generation: While it is not easy to quantify the gas security of supply risk in Europe, it makes sense to me to not be totally dependent on gas for generation. Nuclear offers an energy source with supplies coming from politically stable countries (Canada and Australia). While nuclear is not all up sides, I believe that, provided a long term store is built in the UK, the EPR represents a safe and clean alternative and thats want to see it built."

Anna Gibb
"Dear Sirs PROPOSED HINKLEY POINT (NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION) ORDER 1. We refer to the consultation by the Infrastructure Planning Committee on the proposed Hinkley Point (Nuclear Generating Station) Order (“the Development Consent Order” or “DCO”) in respect of the construction of a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, Somerset. 2. Trinity House is the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar with powers principally derived from the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended). The role of Trinity House as a General Lighthouse Authority under the Act includes the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons within our area of jurisdiction. Our statutory role includes reviewing and giving prior consent to local lighthouse and harbour authorities to establish, alter, remove etc any lighthouse, buoy or beacon. Trinity House may direct marking of structures with aids to navigation in such areas through powers of direction contained within relevant local harbour legislation and pursuant to the Harbours Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. 3. Trinity House notes that the provisions of the DCO relating to the power to construct, maintain and operate a temporary jetty are also the subject of the applicant’s application to the Marine Management Organisation for a Harbour Empowerment Order (“the HEO”). We understand that these provisions have been included in the DCO in case the HEO application is unsuccessful. If the HEO is made the DCO will require amendment to refer correctly to the HEO and to omit much of Part 2 of the DCO. Trinity House requests the opportunity to review the DCO again once the outcome of the HEO application is known 4. Trinity House does not object to the proposed DCO. 5. We wish to raise one issue in relation article 45 of the draft DCO. It is usual for section 102 of the Harbours Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to be incorporated in similar Orders. Yours faithfully Anna Gibb Legal Adviser Direct Dial: xxxx Email: xxxx"

Julian Taylor
"I am concerned about the impact on the Local Community of a new Nuclear Power Station. In Particular. Housing Cost in the Bridgwater Area. Transport Infrastructure, lack of a Bridwater By Pass, Traffic overload, Wages drift, Lack of long term good quality jobs for Bridgwater."

EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd
"This response is on behalf of EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd. This is part of the EDF Group along with the applicant. In principle we support the development proposal. We are owners of Hinkley Point B Nuclear Power Station. We are currently examining the proposals and continue to consult with the applicant. It is noted though that the DCO proposes to 'stop up' a stretch of the access road to HPB. We have no objection to this provided that prior to or immediatley upon the stopping up of the access road becoming effective, full rights of access are granted over the stopped up stretch of access road to EDF Energy NG Ltd, Dept of Energy & Climate Change, Nuclear Liabilities Fund, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Magnox Ltd and National Grid. Please treat this as a relevant representation and keep us informed at each stage of the DCO process."

Kevin Elliott
"I fully support the construction of a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. This will be good for the area, be a boost to local businesss,and provide a good level of well paid jobs both during and after construction. Also the safety record of the nuclear power station operating companys is one of the best in the world."

John E Earp
"The UK Governments climate change obligations will only be met if there is a concerted effort tintroduce reliable and effective electricity generation projects which will offset those which increase carbon Dioxide emissions. Nuclear generation is one such system on generation which is proven and cost effective and which is likely to boost the UK ecomony. The new build proposed by EdF at Hinkley point is a significant development to meet these needs. As with all major industrial and infrastructure projects Hinkley Point C will have an impact on the local area. This impact will effectively be in two stages, during construction (a period of between 5 – 10 years depending on how it is measured) and during the normal operating period estimated to be 60 years. Hinkley point has been the site of a nuclear power station since th early 1960’s when the A station commenced, hence the local people are generally familiar with the impact of operations. Such impacts are generally positive in that as a large facility it provides job opportunites both directly (staff formally employed by the plant – likely to be greaterthan 1500 for the two reactors) and indirectly in terms of supporting contracts eg small building type works, landscaping etc at the site and general community economic activity as a result of the new families moving in to the area. My recent discussions with small business owners in the north Taunton and Bridgwater areas indicate that they see potential opportunities from the development. However during construction of such a major complex there will inevitably be some disruption to normal activities in the area. The workforce at the site is likely to peak at greater than 5000 and whilst some will be local many will be itinerant moving to live in the area for the construction period or part of it. From the material published by EdF this problem has been acknowledged and significant steps taken or proposed to alleviate any difficulties. However given the need to transport significant amounts of material through the area disruption to transport will be inevitable at times despite the attempts by EdF to offer as alleviation as possible. Again my recent discussions with small business owners (as above) suggest that on balance even during the construction period the project should significantly enhance the economic activity in the area. A particular sector of importance is education with the influx of large numbers of people it is inevitable that there will be more children and young adults in the education and training system. From press reports Bridgwater College seems to have embraced this challenge and has become a leading player in delivering trained personnel for the nuclear sector. A similar approach could see an enhancement of local schools from primary through to sixth form. My interests relate to the fact I was employed at Hinkley as the site Engineering manager and have spent more than 35 years associated with the nuclear industry. Although retired I’m still associated with aspects of the nuclear sector."

C V Grylls
"My Ref: HINK = 00074 IPC Ref: ENO10001 I have lived in Somerset since 1984 firstly in the village of Cannington and then, in the village of Nether Stowey. Both locations are within a 3 mile radius of Hinkley Point.I am a professional, working as an independent designer and consultant on design and construction projects for the built and natural enviroment. I would like to register as an interested party as I disagree with aspects of the EDF Application, to authorise the construction, operation and maintenance of a new nuclear power station consisting of two new reactors and spent fuel storage at Hinkley Point in Somerset, South West England. 1.The scale of the proposed development is inapropriate for the South West Region and the rural/agricultural landscape and views,will be industrialised and urbanised. The proposed devt site @ Hinkley Point is 4 times larger than the existing site.2.2 t Combwich Wharf the freight laydown facility is larger than the village itself.2.11 At Junction 23 the site is 5 times the size of the existing industrial estate.2.12 At Junction 24 the proposed site is 5 times larger than the existing Motorway Services Area.2.13 2 Environment impact specifically Green Land: The appication fails to demonstrate the full loss of green land over all sites affected. At presentations and public meetings, when asked EDF could not answer the question of how much green land is to be built on over all. The loss of green land as indicated above @ Hinkley Point,Junction 23, Combwich and Cannington adversely affects sustainability and the landscape of this particular region which contains The Quantocks,the first designated AONB and is the gateway to Exmoor National Park. The scale of green land loss is unacceptable.2.1 and the application has failed to demonstrate the full impact. The full environmental impact on Bridgwater Bay and the Bristol Channel over an 8 - 12 year construction programme will be negative. Failure to research other brownfield sites for this development. Proposed By Pass route for Cannington cuts straight through mature historic landscape. 3. Insufficient road infrastructure provisions. Small adjustments to the road infrastructure between the 2 x M5 Motorway junctions and Hinkley Point are insufficient to enable this construction .2.5 The proposal will add to existing congestion and road use to create gridlock through Bridgwater affecting it's economy. Emergency services will be severely affected. Failure to take into consideration rerouting of M5 Motorway traffic along the A38 whenever there is an accident on the motorway.eg.cancelling of Carnival North Petherton November 2011. Overload at Junctions 23 and 24 causing accident potentiality on motorways. Proposed Cannington By Pass meets C125 between Cannington village and Grain Store straight into maximum use by tractors.2.1 Why adjustments at Brook St, Cannington when they are building a By Pass to Cannington.2.1 Failure to propose a By Pas for Bridgwater which is already suffering from road over use. NDR pollution levels through Bridgwater already unacceptably high. serious affect on tourism which creates a large percentage of the local economy. 4. Cumulative Impact Failure to consider the cumulative effects of present and future other developments in the long term. Junction 23 expansion of Vehicle Auction Centre to cover the whole of Wales and the South West. Morrisons depot and take up of green land adjacent to Junction 23. Junction 24 Livestock market continuing programme and expansion for livestock and Leisure use. Bridgwater proposed development for Tesco superstore in town centre. Further house building and industrial builds in and around Bridgwater. new major bridge construction in the area. Cumulative effect of proposed mega industrial site at Hinkley Point adjacent to existing site with 2 massive reactors from surrounding Hills, next to super sensitive environmental sites and,on the Southwest Coastal Path. Further cumulative impact from Jetty Construction to receive materials and construction components. 5. Establishment of a nuclear waste dump for highly radioactive material for over 160 years. Inappropriate location for such a facility necessary for this application. Insufficient detail for such a facility within this proposal. insufficient Emergency safeguards in place for such a facility at this location. Insufficient geological stability for deep spent fuel chambers at this location."

Save Cannington Action group
"1. We are very concerned about the proposed volumes of traffic which the project will engender along the A38 to the west of Bridgwater and through the village of Cannington. Safety and nuisance are our prime concerns. 2. The EdF Consultation process was seen as misleading and lacking in detailed information and a betrayal of agreements reached with local groups. 3 We wish to challenge the environmental statements made as we believe that they are superficial and misleading, particularly with respect to the long-term operational use of the site. 4. We wish to challenge the apparent approach used by the project management team in assessing the off-site works. It gives the appearance of decisions being made and then a search for substantiation rather than decisions being made on a basis of evidence. 5. We wish to challenge the proposal for the long-term storage of used fuel on site. We believe that this is dangerous in terms of safety and engineering stability. A separate paper will be issued for each of the above."

Bridgwater College
"Bridgwater College supports the proposal for the HPC development and recognises EDF Energy’s commitment to education and skills development to meet the workforce needs of the project and long term sustainability in the community. Inevitably however with a project of this scale there are matters of concern which have not yet been fully addressed. These are listed below: Accommodation • The College is concerned that insufficient consideration has been given to the location of sports facilities to maximise long term legacy. This is particularly the case at Bridgwater A where more could be done to connect leisure facilities with other infrastructure improvements planned such as at the new East Bridgwater Academy, and at Cannington where there is the potential to provide long term sports and leisure resources to meet the needs of workforce and also community, College and Brymore school. This would also have the added benefit of improving mitigation to the whole Cannington community. • Whilst the College supports the proposed development at Bridgwater C, we are concerned that there is still ambiguity about long term legacy arrangements for the College. It would be of great concern to us if ambiguity resulted in third party commercial exploitation of the proximity of the accommodation to the College. • Further clarity is needed regarding the College’s continuing access to the parking area to the immediate north side of the Bridgwater C site as well as the design of the accommodation to ensure it would meet the likely requirements for legacy use in 7-8 years’ time. Transport • The College is concerned about the serious impact that the heavy flow of traffic, particularly prior to the construction of the bypass, will have on the everyday life of Cannington. The College’s second campus houses some 650 students, 150 of these residential. • Student safety is of course paramount particularly prior to the construction of the bypass which the College hopes will be brought forward to the earliest opportunity. Whilst the proposal to place a zebra/puffin crossing close to the main entrance to the Cannington campus is supported as well as further traffic calming measures, there also needs to be thought given to appropriate barriers on Rodway Hill to ensure that students are not tempted to cross other than at the crossing. Traffic calming meanwhile needs to be of a kind that does not snarl up the whole village, making it impossible to get students and staff into and out of the village in a timely way. • There ideally needs to be co-ordination between all contractors and works on the A-C stations regarding traffic through Cannington as at the moment C site vehicles are operating to different guidelines to the A&B sites. • Alternative pedestrian access through Tollhouse Road could be developed to avoid many students some of whom have learning difficulties from walking the narrow route along the main road from the main site to the Crockers site on East Road in Cannington. • Car parking is a pressure point already in the village. We would recommend that consideration be given to a pedestrian walkway from the proposed park and ride which we support, on the Denman’s Farm land along Denman’s Lane to the village, and that this remain at the end of the project as legacy • It is critical that safe pedestrian routes are made available between Brymore School and the College, crossing the bypass, to enable Brymore students to access resources at College as part of the College’s sponsorship of the University Technical College at Brymore. Security • The proximity of a large workforce to College and Brymore school requires enhanced security such as CCTV particularly as both institutions have residential students. Socio-economics • Whilst there are many positive outcomes to the local community particularly in terms of future employment, we do not feel that significant recognition as to the impact on Cannington has been taken into account in the levels of mitigation proposed. The risk to both College and Brymore School of a drop in recruitment is a real one as a result of parental concern about safety and the potential disruption of increased traffic flow. • Whilst these risks cannot be eradicated, they can be mitigated by direct interventions such as increased CCTV security for residential students and by additional investment in the resources for Cannington in particular in relation to sports and leisure facilities as mentioned above, which could be accessible to community, College, Brymore students and workforce alike."

Dr Sian Jones
"Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station IPC Reference: EN010001 I wish to raise the following concerns about the proposed new power station ENVIRONMENTAL Hinkley Point includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is situated within the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve, overlooks the Severn Estuary RAMSAR site, and neighbours the Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Given that the site and locality are of such ecological, scientific and aesthetic importance, any development would be inappropriate, and undermine the protected status of the land. Instead, the proposed removal of woodlands and hedges would impact of various flora and fauna, including protected species. Radioactive contamination of the land would increase. EMERGENCY PLANNING There would be an increased risk from radioactivity to the local population, due to inadequate emergency planning and weaknesses in off-site emergency communications plan, in the event of a serious incident.. There appears to be no evacuation procedure in place for the workers in case of incident at Hinkley B whilst Hinkley C is under construction. Evacuation remains via a single track road. FLOOD RISK There is inadequate provision for the effects of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforeseen tidal wave event, as took place in 1607. There is a 100-year flood risk in this area. Spent fuel would be stored on site for at least 160 years. The Weightman report is premature. The Fukushima crisis is ongoing, and a comprehensive assessment of tts implications for new nuclear build at Hinkley remains to be conducted. RISKS IN EXISTING EDF NUCLEAR BUILDS / EPR DESIGN Four existing EPR projects are all experiencing design and construction problems: Flamanville 3 (France), Olkiluoto 3 (Finland) and Taishan 1 & 2 (China). To date, no EPR reactor has been completed anywhere in the world. Unresolved design issues remain, concerns having been expressed by nuclear regulators in UK, France and Finland. WASTE / SPENT FUEL Inadequate planning for management of radioactive waste, including cooling sent fuel, produced by the proposed facility. High-level spent fuel storage on site (for at least 160 years) puts an unprecedented risk upon present and future generations in the area. Prolonged storage of such waste on-site, with no viable final disposal solution in the UK or anywhere in the world, exposes the population to the future risk of further contamination through flooding or other incidents. HEALTH RISKS The impact of long-term low-level radiation exposure on public health and local ecology has not been fully explored at Hinkley Point. Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in the estuary, e.g. Bridgwater Bay mudflats, and cancer clusters have been reported at Burnham-on-Sea, downwind of Hinkley."

Brookridge Timber Ltd
"Brookridge Timber Ltd (BTL) has concerns over the proposed road alterations at the Dunball roundabout in that:- 1) BTL owns a freehold site currently serviced by existing road layout. A significant financial value is attributed to the site due to its location, direct access and it’s visual appearance from the roundabout 2) Proposed plans includes creation of earth bank on existing exit from roundabout which will obliterate the view of the site. 3) Proposed access to site is planned from a new feeder road which will not attract call-in trade. 4) Plan HPC-NNBPEA-J3-000-Rep-000006 ref 500107 suggests existing access to East side of factory building will be grassed over. This would not be acceptable as BTL has a legal right of access to building. BTL is not against the proposed road layout but feels aggrieved at the financial loss it will incur as a result."

E & P Painting Contractors Ltd
"Hinkley has historically hosted nuclear generation facilities and a new power station would gain benefit from being developed in an area which must contain many skills which are currently underdeployed. The ability of a construction supply chain, from wherever it is based, to enable these skills to be used and developed under a technical regime which will enhance the local supply chain resource. A positive planning result will provide jobs and skills enhancement for many years. Although our company would aspire to be part of the Hinkley Supply Chain we would expect to employ a major proprtion of our people locally. Our expertise lays in coatings and we would expect our local employees to be upskilled to support the construction process at Hinkley."

Kevin Coughlan
"I have been a resident of   for nearly 30 years. For EDF to be allowed to rape our environment by jamming it with heavy vehicles for many years is unthinkable! Before any work is started on Hinkley C,acess to the new site MUST be constructed.The sensible route would be from Dunball to Hinkley Point and EDF should not be allowed the cheap and easy option which would be so shortsighted when you consider the benefits over the coming decades,of the Dunball route to this corner of Somerset. Let's get it right from the outset and make sure what happens is the best for us and NOT for EDF."

Linda Z Wicks
"The consultation that EDF has conducted so far has been meagre. They have simply told us what they plan to do. I believe this power station is unnecessary, dangerous and hugely expensive."

Laura Bowen
"I moved to Cannington in 1985 when I was 2 years old with my parents. I grew up in Cannington and my parents still live there now so I visit as often as I can. I am very disappointed with the plans I have seen put forward by EDF and am extremely concerned about our beautiful village and it residents, many of whom are friends. I have also seen the alternative suggestions put to EDF which would, if accepted, leave the village relatively unspoilt. I understand that the country needs power and that EDF need to carry out this work but that is not a reason to ruin a village when there are perfectly viable other options that would cause fewer disruptions to the people in the surrounding areas. I hope that these comments are not left in vain and that consideration of them, along with all the others, will result in somebody taking notice. You are talking about people's lives and homes. My parents property in particular I fear will lose equity due to EDF's plans along with lots of other people's property and this is simply unfair. Please do not ruin our lovely village."

Rosemary Haworth-Booth
"I disagree with the application to develop a new nuclear power station at Hinkley on the following grounds: I do not believe Nuclear power to be sufficiently safe in its production to merit its use as a standard source of energy. We have learned from the recent disaster at Fukushima and less recently at 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl that accidents at Nuclear power reactors, though few, are devastating in their effects. The jury is still out on the long term effects of contamination but local inhabitants are taking no risks. There has been an accident at a French plant within the last year, and there has also been harmful contamination of rivers in France from other plants. Managing the waste is another fraught issue where the governmnent has consistently ignored advice from its own Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Possibly the most graphic way of making this point is to say that if Nuclear Energy had been around at the time Stonehenge was built we would still be trying to deal with the waste. The actual building of such a plant would have very deleterious effects on farming, tourism, and the lives of ordinary people through huge increases in traffic, noise and the anxiety regarding potential accidents caused by having a nuclear reactor close to where they live. There appear to be no evacuation plans in place should an accident happen during construction. There is an issue with flood risk, which is statuatory at 1 in 100 years, but there are plans to hold nuclear waste on site for 160 years. Fuel provided by Hinkley C could be equalled by fuel provided by renewable energy, Wind, Solar and Tidal if the government had the commitment to invest in these sources and by energy efficiency measures also put in place by government."

Laura Sangers
"I have four topics of objection that are concerns about the local impact Contamination of the land There is an on going investigation to the contamination of the land, there is no solution to nuclear waste. It is toxic, radioactive and it's no to say it exaggeration cannot be contained. There is no safe dose of radiation, it's accumulative. This toxic waste provides a real problem to all life. Health Implications. Construction on this land would compromise the health of locals and workers . EDF has not taken this seriously, or the fact that its own data showed contamination, Workers regularly are victim to tumours and cancers from being exposed to the power plant. Hinkley c will increase health problems. The KIKK study in Germany reported a 1.6 fold increase in cancers and 2.2fold increase in leukaemias among children living within 5km of all German nuclear power stations. Similarly Burnham on sea are up to 5 times the national average The Construction Traffic Local Traffic The people of Cannington will be subjected to construction traffic for 10 years. Vehicle movement every 40 seconds . EDF has underestimated the impact on people's lives and ignored villagers concerns: damage to houses, the noise and traffic congestion. 93% of local villagers do not want construction traffic. No compensation for this uprooting of rural life. Any accident at Hinkley point would make local evacuation impossible. Bridgwater suffers rush hour congestion as it is. The Damage to the local area The area is a designated as SPA , SCI, SSSI. The estuary itself is designated as a wetland of international importance. The trees and hedges are hundreds of years old and a haven for protected birds."

Vanessa Matthews
"concerns over the impact on local villages, especially cannington, with increased traffic and no by pass"

Paul Flynn MP
"My name is Paul Flynn. I have been Labour MP for Newport West since 1987. I have had long standing concerns over nuclear power on safety, security, environmental and cost grounds, which I have raised on many occasions since being a founding member of the Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance (WANA) in 1980. I have long opposed the three nuclear plants on the River Severn and its estuary, and oppose any additional new plants being built on these sites. I regard them posing an unacceptable safety risk to my constituents and to tens of thousands of other citizens living in the vicinity of these plants, as well as their future offspring, and would therefore like to resister as an interested party. Since the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan in March 2011, I have raised my concerns on many occasions with ministers and directly with chief nuclear inspector, Dr Mike Weightman. I agree with the concerns expressed by Greenpeace UK that the application by NNB Generation Ltd barely 20 days after publication of Dr Weightman’s report on the implications for the UK of the Fukushima accident was seriously premature, in that the Applicant cannot have had the appropriate time to evaluate and act upon Dr Weightman’s recommendations, in particular on emergency planning in the event of an accident involving the release of radiation off site and related evacuation procedures. Dr Weightman highlighted a series of as yet unresolved safety matters concerning emergency evacuation. This should certainly be scrutinised in detail by the IPC. I also regard the proposed on site storage of irradiated spent fuel for up to 160 years as posing an unacceptable potential threat to both local residents and citizens living further away such as in my Newport West constituency, because such stores are vulnerable to terrorist attack, with a consequent release and widespread dispersal of deadly radioactivity that could have an effect on current and future generations exposed to its fallout. I have been unconvinced by ministerial reassurances on this important inter-generational ethical concern, and call upon the IPC to examine in detail the security issues surrounding Applicants’ proposals for any new nuclear plants, including importantly the consequences of security failures. In the context of radiation exposure, I advocate the IPC call expert witnesses, including from Government advisors COMARE and its critics, to examine the issues raised by the so-called KIKK (Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von KernKraftwerken) study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants. Finally, I strongly endorse the call by Greenpeace that where it is ambiguous whether a particular topic falls within the IPC’s remit, there should be a presumption in favour of allowing discussion, especially as this is the first occasion for such an important planning decision as deciding on whether a Development Consent Order is granted to an applicant to build a new nuclear power plant. I would be pleased to attend any Open Floor public evidence session held by IPC to expand my concerns in person. I reserve my right to submit further written evidence, depending on what information is presented publicly to the IPC on the issues I have highlighted."

D. Topliffe
"I am extremely concerned at the level of disruption EDF's proposals will cause throughout the area, particularly in Cannington due to there being no provision for a bypass before building starts. Heavy traffic will be affecting our lives for many years to come. Over the years of consultation, I have received the impression that although EDF say they have listened to our views, they go away and present plans that they want with no further options to the public and appear to act as if the planning process is a "done deal". The whole proposal is unacceptable unless a bypass is built before the main build starts as the Bridgwater area will become grid-locked and nobody will be able to travel anywhere let alone do a day's work."

Ministry of Defence
"MOD Submission to the IPC for case ref. ENO10001 The site of the proposed nuclear power station does not occupy any Ministry of Defence (MOD) statutory safeguarding zones. However, the MOD operates Lilstock firing range in Bridgewater Bay near the application site. Whilst the firing activities conducted at the range will not affect the proposed development scheme, this is an area regularly used by military air traffic flying at low altitudes. The MOD therefore considers that it would be beneficial for the tallest structures featured in the main development site, the buildings housing the reactors, to be fitted with aviation warning lights to define the highest points of the structures. The MOD therefore requests that if the scheme is consented that the reactor buildings are fitted with either red warning lighting or infra-red (IR) warning lighting that would be detectable by military aircrew using night vision goggles in accordance with the following specifications: The lighting used should conform to the following specification: Red Lighting Specification Light intensity – 25cd or greater Horizontal pattern – unrestricted 360 degrees emission Vertical pattern – full intensity between +15 degrees and horizontal. Overspill – upwards spilage is acceptable, downwards overspill should be minimised such that the light cannot be observed below -10 degrees. Flash pattern – 60 flashes per minute at 100-500 ms durations (ideally 250 ms). Synchronisation – all lights fitted to the development should flash together. IR Lighting Specification IR wave length: 750-900nm (ideally concentrated between 800 – 850 nm for optimum detection by all military NVG types. IR intensity – 600mW/sr Horizontal pattern – unrestricted 360 degree emission Vertical pattern – full intensity between +30 degrees and -15 degrees from horizontal. Flash pattern – 60 flashes per minute at 100-500 ms durations (ideally 250 ms) Synchronisation – all lights fitted to the development should flash together. The MOD recognises that the existing Hinkley Point nuclear power station is encompassed by an air exclusion zone (EG R153) this exclusion zone partially overlaps with the Air Danger Area (D119) containing Lilstock Range. The exclusion includes provision to enable military air traffic using the range to pass through the exclusion zone subject to authorisation from the power station operator. The creation of a new exclusion zone, or modification of the existing zone, to encompass the new nuclear power station will result in the exclusion zone extending further west over Danger Area D119. The MOD therefore considers that any development consent order issued should make provision to ensure that any new or modified air exclusion zone established over the power station should retain the existing provisions to enable military air traffic using Danger Area D119 to pass through the exclusion zone subject to the operator’s approval. The development scheme for which consent is sought includes seabed cooling water intakes and outfall structures together with tunnels connecting these to the power station. The locations identified for the construction of the offshore outfall and intake heads occupy Danger Area D119. The proposed structures are remote from target areas and will not affect range activities. However, the presence of vessels or construction platforms engaged in the construction of the intake heads are likely to affect range safety management requirements in that they may be exposed to the discharge of spent ammunition from overflying helicopters engaged in gunnery practise. To ensure military training activities are not disrupted the MOD considers it necessary for any development consent order issued for this scheme to include a condition obligating the applicant to submit a health and safety assessment and management plan for the deployment of vessels, work platforms (or other types of vehicles and installations) used in the installation of offshore structures located within Danger Area D119. These should take account of the air gunnery activities carried out at Lilstock range and identify measures to ensure the safety of vessels, installations and personnel deployed within the Danger Area whilst range activities are carried out. This management plan should require approval from the IPC prior to the commencement of offshore works. It is noted that the applicant has identified that they will submit an application for a marine license to undertake the marine works to install these offshore structures. The MOD will review and comment separately on any such application. The temporary jetty included in the application also occupies Danger Area D119 but is located outside the range target area. The principal concern of MOD relates to the management of marine traffic to and from the jetty across the range area. The MOD has been engaged in extensive dialogue with the applicant on the construction and operation of the jetty. As a result appropriate mitigation measures have been identified in relation to the marine consent and Harbour Order applications submitted. The majority of these measures are reflected in the draft development consent and harbour orders for this scheme. However, the MOD considers it necessary for an additional condition to be included in any consent order issued by the IPC requiring the applicant to submit a management plan, for the approval of the IPC prior to the commencement of construction of the jetty. This plan should set out measures and arrangements to maintain communication between the harbour authority, shipping using the jetty and the MOD operator of Lilstock range. The purpose of the plan will be to co-ordinate vessel movements to and from the jetty with military training activities conducted at the range to ensure these activities can safely coexist. The MOD therefore maintains no safeguarding objection to the proposed development of the Hinkley Point C – nuclear generating station as detailed in application EN010001 and the supporting plans and other documentation, subject to any development consent order granted including the conditions identified above."

Alan Kelly
"We live close to Bridgwater/Cannington and are concerned about significantly increased road traffic if a bypass from the M5 j23 to the site is not constructed."

Prof. Geoffrey Poole FRSA
"This proposal is dangerous and ill-conceived for the following reasons. All EPR projects are experiencing design and construction problems: Flamanville 3 (France), Olkiluoto 3 (Finland) and Taishan 1 & 2 (China). Unresolved design issues remain re storage ponds and cooling. High-level spent fuel storage is required on site for 160+ years while Hinkley is known to be have been subject to Atlantic tsunamis within recent centuries and environmental stability is not exactly a secure prospect at this time. Statistical clusters of childhood cancer in areas of nuclear reactors have been consistently documented for more than half a century (and reaffirmed in Germany, France, data from the Lancashire and Wales coast, Burnham-on-Sea, Essex etc.): indeed the 'safety limits' are drawn up strategically for and by the nuclear industry and obviously with great leniency. Hinkley borders a rare estruarial habitat, whose mudflats retain contamination. Within contamination distance lie several large conurbations (Bristol, Exeter, Cardiff etc.) which have apparently been offered no say in this decision. Finally, the safety inadequacies of Fukushima Daiishi point up the fact that the international control of standards has been far too lax. UK experts were still appearing on TV every day with false reassurances. We have lost faith in them. It is no longer acceptable to plan as though things are 100% safe and then lament the unexpected - which is after all how things turn out. We would consign our descendants over a timeframe of millenia, i.e. until the rods are safe, to potential damage and death: who can possibly guarantee their safety in an absolutely unknown geophysical and socio-economic distant future? Ergo: we do not have the Right to override their interests and survival simply for our comfort."

Mark Samson
"1) Flood/Storm Surge/Tsunami Risks & Size of potential exclusion zone ?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Channel_floods,_1607 http://www.rms.com/Reports/1607_Bristol_Flood.pdf >>>"On 30 January 1607, floods resulted in the drowning of an estimated 3,000 or more people, with houses and villages swept away, an estimated 200 square miles (518 km2) of farmland inundated and livestock destroyed,[1] wrecking the local economy along the coasts of the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary, in what was then the Kingdom of England." ... The coasts of Devon and the Somerset Levels as far inland as Glastonbury Tor, 14 miles (23 km) from the coast, were also affected. "<<< There needs to be considerable investment and planning to cope with such an event - particularly containment, power for cooling and access for emergency services. In the worst case what would be the extent of a Fukushima like exclusion zone for Hinkley ? The public should be told so they can decide where they want to live. After Fukushima we must not add man-made disaster to a terrible natural disaster. Clearly history of the Hinkley Point locality, shows that we should not be so naive to think natural disasters don't happen in the UK. After the terrorist incident of 911, nuclear power stations are clearly a serious national vulnerability, even without considering natural disasters. 2) Waste/Spent Fuel Storage & Future Tax Payer Costs: As spent fuel will be hotter and more radioactive than previous designs. How will it be cooled ? Storage ponds are not yet designed at Hinkley. Having high level fuel storage on site (for 160 years ?) is a burden on future generations and a long term liability and safety risk to the environment. The nuclear industry has previously lumbered the tax payer with over £ 70 billion of decommissioning & waste storage costs, the tax payer should not inherit any waste storage or decommissioning costs from this new Hinkley power station. 3) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): Hinkley Point includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) target is to have 95% of the SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition by 2010, but this planning application would be destructive and undermine their protected status as well as their recreational value. 4) Bankrupty/Accident Liability: If the operating or holding company for Hinkley encounters financial problems or liability for accidents, please make sure that any parent company is fully legally responsible to meet costs and liabilities for Hinkley and does not evade them due to offrshore or other holding arrangements."

Stephen Dagg on behalf of Innovia Cellophane Limited and Innovia Films Limited
"Representations of Innovia Cellophane Limited and Innovia Films Limited (“Innovia”) Hinkley Point C New Nuclear Power Station (EN010001) Introduction Innovia believes that there are several important issues which ought to be the subject of detailed consideration at formal issue-specific hearings into the DCO application by NNB Generation Company Limited (the “Applicant”) and in relation to which Innovia would welcome the opportunity to make further detailed written representations: 1. Vires 2. Site selection 3. Delivery of housing 4. Remediation 5. Statement of reasons 6. Powers of compulsory acquisition 7. Security for compensation 8. Legacy 9. Enforceability of covenants Innovia also specifically requests pursuant to section 92 of the Planning Act 2008 that a compulsory acquisition hearing is held in relation to powers of compulsory acquisition being granted in relation to Bridgwater A. 1. Vires The proposed accommodation at Bridgwater A constitutes “dwellings” and is therefore excluded from the ambit of associated development under section 115(2)(b) of the Planning Act 2008. The IPC should not therefore exercise its powers to grant development consent or powers of compulsory acquisition over the land. This issue is presently the subject of an application to the Court of Appeal. Article 33B of the Draft Development Consent Order purports to dis-apply the provisions of the North East Bridgwater Development Section 106 Agreement. This is inconsistent with Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. Site selection The Applicant’s approach to site selection is misconceived. There have been a number of failings and shortcomings in the process and justification adopted for the selection of Bridgwater A as a site to be used for accommodation for construction workers. 3. Delivery of housing The Applicant’s proposals do not adequately consider and address either the local and national housing policy implications or the impact of the proposed worker accommodation on the delivery of housing at Bridgwater A or on Innovia’s retained land generally or specifically and are based on various inaccurate suppositions about housing delivery. These are material considerations in relation to the IPC’s decision whether or not to make the DCO. 4. Remediation Innovia is currently actively progressing the first stage of remediation – the demolition of the factory buildings – as part of an existing programme of holistic remediation of its land. The remediation of Bridgwater A should not therefore be considered a benefit of the Applicant’s proposals, since it would occur independently of them – and on a larger, comprehensive, scale – even if the development consent application did not proceed. 5. Statement of reasons The onus is on the acquiring authority to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest for the granting of compulsory powers of acquisition. In the absence of site-specific analysis in the Statement of Reasons it is clear that this test has not been met. 6. Powers of compulsory acquisition Article 24 of the draft development consent order would provide the Applicant with the right to acquire the subsoil only of any part of Bridgwater A. In the absence of such a justification and given the nature of the Applicant’s proposals for Bridgwater A, it is wholly inappropriate that this power should be granted in relation to that land. The Book of Reference provides that the Applicant may take temporary possession of a number of plots. This would leave Innovia with islands of land along the A38 which it would find difficult to access and may not be able to access at all with vehicles. The Applicant should use this land for its worker accommodation before taking land from Innovia further to the north and east. The Applicant has not properly made out a compelling case in the public interest to be granted rights to temporarily take the eastern end of plot BRI-A_15. The taking of this land would prevent access to Sydenham Manor by Innovia but no justification has been offered by the Applicant for the taking of this land. Importantly the rhyne is not adjacent to this land. Plot BRI-A_2 is incorrectly coloured on the Land Plan. 7. Security for compensation It can often take considerable periods of time before issues of disputed compulsory purchase compensation are resolved. The Applicant is a private company (a subsidiary of EDF Energy) and there is no guarantee that the Applicant, will exist or be solvent when compensation is determined. It is essential that the Applicant should be required to take further steps to give adequate security in respect of its compensation liabilities. 8. Legacy The Applicant has identified a very limited range of potential legacy benefits which might arise from Bridgwater A which begs questions about the sustainability of the development. Furthermore, legacy details are to be determined after the construction of the new power station in a “Post Operational Strategy”. Requirement BRIA16 provides for this to be approved by the Commission in consultation with the local planning authority but provides no opportunity to engage with landowners or the local community, or even a requirement to notify them. 9. Enforceability of covenants Failure to give enforceable covenants and/or requirements in respect of: • The approval and implementation of the Accommodation Management Strategy referred to in Section 7 of the Accommodation Strategy. • The approval and implementation of the Community Safety Management Plan referred to in Section 7 of the Accommodation Strategy. • The management of parking at the Bridgwater A sports facilities in order to avoid parking problems in the locality."

Mid Devon District Council
"Mid Devon District Council does not wish to make any comment on the application."

Tom Burke
"• As the disaster at Fukushima showed, there are serious risks associated with nuclear power. Countries are reviewing their nuclear programmes and regulatory regimes to protect their reactors from the sorts of extreme events that caused the Fukushima disaster. • As this process is still on-going, this application cannot be in line with international best practice, as there is not yet any consensus as to the best way to protect reactors and, more importantly, members of the public, from major disasters. • When this application was submitted, an English translation of the Japanese government’s report into the disaster had not been made public. This is likely to contain several lessons for the UK nuclear industry and its regulators. • Dr Weightman’s report for the Office of Nuclear Regulation into the lessons that the nuclear industry, government and the regulators needed to learn from Fukushima pointed to several areas where improvements needed to be made to the knowledge base, reactor design or emergency response procedures. These issues have not yet been fully addressed. Furthermore, it will be number of years before it is possible to examine the reactor cores at Fukushima to determine exactly what happened. In the much less serious nuclear accident at Three Mile Island, it was several years before it was possible to determine exactly what had happened to the core. Without such a determination it is difficult to see how Dr Wieghtman could have come to firm final conclusions about what further measures might be needed to avoid the catastrophic consequences of a loss of external power event. • The experienced level of category 7 nuclear accidents greatly exceeds the engineering estimates of the likelihood of such accidents. • It is not clear that the proposers have the necessary financial strength to deliver the project as intended. • Fukushima has revealed that economic consequences of a serious nuclear accident can be very large. In the case of Fukushima they have yet to be fully discovered a year after the event. The existing provision, both private and public, for meeting the economic liabilities of a major accident, is clearly inadequate. It is not appropriate to expose a potentially very large population to such large scale economic risks on the basis of a vague promise from the Government which it may not, itself, be able to fulfill, without that population being fully aware of the scale of risk to which they are potentially exposed."

Rebecca Robinson
"New nuclear power stations should not be built."

David Wood
"Dear representatives To me this is a no brainer. You should dismiss this application outright. You are here to administer Somerset in the interests of its population. Fukushima and its inhabitants have simply been abandoned by its central government over a large area. An exclusion zone for Hinkley would condemn not only us but the major cities of Bristol and Cardiff. Central government would have no viable option but to abandon us too. The effect here would be potentially much worse as the Severn Bore would spread the poison much further afield. Conversely using the Tidal flow could provide enormous power with no risks. I know you have no application for that yet, but that's no reason to risk damaging the lives of your population for generations for a scheme known to have unknowable risks. Your lovely County with the Levels and so many historic places would be lost for centuries or much longer. A chance earthquake or storm, it seems can happen anywhere in an ocean like the Atlantic. Please dismiss this application"

Sarah Hartley
"Recent events at Fukoshima and our continuing vulnerability to terrorism make me very anxious about the prospects of another nuclear power station on the British Isles, especially as we largely have westerly winds which would blow radioactive waste from such an attack over land. The cost is phenomenal and could be better spent insulating homes and investing in renewable sources of energy. We still have no really adequate method to dispose of spent fuel rods."

Linda Bareham-Stanley
"Concerns over extra Traffic and Parking in Bridgwater. Living in proximaty of the railway station I am very concerned over possible increase in traffic and pedestrians useing the area."

Office for Nuclear Regulation
"The Office for Nuclear regulation (ONR), an agency of the Health & Safety Executive, is the principal regulator of the safety and security of the UK nuclear industry. ONR licenses and regulates a broad range of nuclear facilities and activities, and includes the former Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the UK Safeguards Office, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security, and the Department for Transport’s Radioactive Materials Transport Team. In July 2011 NNB Genco applied for a nuclear site licence to allow it to construct and operate two EPR reactors at Hinkley Point. ONR anticipates that its assessment of this application will take at least 12 months. The standard nuclear site licence comes with 36 licence conditions and ONR will not grant a licence to NNB Genco until it is satisfied that the company has adequate, fit-for-purpose arrangements that address all of these conditions. The grant of a nuclear site licence will not give NNB Genco unfettered permission to proceed with construction on the site. The licence conditions allow ONR to exercise a number of controls throughout the construction, commissioning and operation of the station. Pour of nuclear safety related concrete will require a formal consent from ONR, as will the start of construction of the main nuclear island. ONR will also need to be satisfied with NNB Genco’s arrangements for ensuring the security of the site throughout construction and into the operational phase. The proposed twin reactor development is based on the Generic UK EPR design. At the request of the designers, EdF/Areva, ONR has been undertaking a Generic Design Assessment (GDA) of this design since July 2007. GDA enables ONR’s technical assessments to be conducted before commitments are made to construct the reactors. In December 2011, following completion of its detailed assessment, ONR announced that it was largely satisfied with the generic safety and security aspects of the UK EPR and issued an Interim Design Acceptance Confirmation (iDAC). Issuing a final DAC will depend on EdF/Areva’s successful resolution of a number of remaining issues (known as GDA Issues) identified and published by ONR in July 2011. It is ONR’s current intent that it will not consider granting consent for the start of nuclear island safety related construction until it has examined NNB Genco’s safety case to undertake that work, and until all related issues have been addressed to ONR’s satisfaction. ONR has examined relevant parts of the DCO appliction and its supporting documents. At this stage we have no substantive comments. However, we will provide a more substantive representation at the start of the DCO examination phase which will highlight any issues which arise from our further examination of the DCO application, as well as providing a more detailed progress report on our work on site licensing and on the EPR GDA close-out process. In addition, ONR will be pleased to provide advice or evidence to the Examining Authority regarding matters identified as relevant in the Nuclear National Policy Statement as well as on any issues relating to our regulatory role or processes which may arise during the Examining Authority’s consideration of the DCO application"

Vicky Banham
"I am in favour of nuclear power as part of this country's energy mix and can see thebenfits of having a power station in the county in terms of the investment it will bring. I am concerned about the short term impacts during the construction phase and in particular on transport, housing tourism and the environment."

Caroline Waller on behalf of Fairfield Estate (Lady Gass)
"We act on behalf of the Fairfield Estate (owner Lady Gass) whose property immediately abuts the existing Hinkley Point nuclear complex. The Estate also includes land on which the proposed development is to take place. Whilst the Estate does not object to the principle of the development, it is concerned to ensure that the need for the development does not eclipse a careful consideration of the detail of the application to ensure that the layout of development is the most efficient use of land and most appropriate that can be achieved in this location and that all possible steps have been taken to minimise the impact of the development on this sensitive area. These representations are intended to be a brief summary of the objections of the Fairfield Estate. Further detail will be provided at the written representations stage and at subsequent hearings (as appropriate). The principal issues of concern to the Fairfield Estate are as follows: 1 Any powers granted pursuant to the DCO should be synchronised with any existing consents or permission and made subject to the same controls/conditions/restrictions and obligations. 2 The restoration of the site must be secured in the event that the DCO is granted and technically implemented but not proceeded with or the site left partially developed for a significant period of time 3 Given the significance of the Landscape and Visual Impacts which are likely to be caused by the proposed development, adequate landscape screening and mitigation must be secured both during the lengthy construction phase and during the operational phase of the development. 4 The prompt removal of any temporary structures or works must be secured and (if appropriate) the site of those structures or works must be reinstated to an appropriate standard (such reinstatement to be secured through obligation or requirement supported by financial security) 5 There must be controls on: 5.1 noise during construction and operation of the project or in relation to the dismantling/demolition of temporary structures/works and the reinstatement of the site 5.2 Dust 5.3 Lighting 6 The timely and effective decommissioning of the station at the end of its useful life must be secured 7 Maximising the use of sustainably located unused or under-used sites in Bridgwater to accommodate workers should be maximised and the numbers to be accommodated in the on-site Campus should be minimised with the number of workers to be accommodated on site to be limited to those necessary for emergency and security cover 8 Enforceable measures must be secured to minimise the impact of the development on the local road network including preventing traffic using the lanes which go through the hamlets of Burton and Shurton or the village of Stogursey and ensuring the early completion of the Cannington Bypass. 9 NNB Generation Company Limited ("NNB") should demonstrate that adequate strategies for the storage and management of Waste have been put in place. The long term storage of waste should not be left to the uncertainties of facilities potentially becoming available in the future. These issues are set out in more detail below. Site Preparation Works 1 General 1.1 The site preparation works (SPW) have been the subject of a specific planning application. The application has been considered in detail by the Local Planning Authority and the s.106 Agreement has been agreed (following a long period of careful negotiation). It is anticipated that the Local Planning Authority will have issued the planning permission for the SPW by the date that these representations are submitted. 1.2 When the DCO application was made, the SPW permission was anticipated but had not been granted. Now that the SPW permission has been (or shortly will be) issued, any powers granted should be synchronised with any existing permissions or consents and made subject to the same controls, conditions, requirements or obligations.. Failure to do so would result in confusion. For example, it may be unclear whether the Order or Permission has been implemented and, therefore, to which the conditions, requirements or obligation the development will be subject. 1.3 Further, it is in the public interest to allow the democratically made decision of the Local Planning Authority to stand. There must be a strong and compelling justification in order to depart from what has been decided and agreed in the context of the planning application. 2 Landscape and Visual Impact 2.1 The site preparation works (SPW) comprise fencing and large scale earthworks to form level construction platforms and haul roads on the north western side of the HPC development site in an elevated location where they will be prominent in relation to adjoining land within Fairfield Estate. 2.2 The adjacent area is high quality landscape. It was evaluated by Natural England in 1986/7 as being of outstanding scenic, historic and scientific interest and extends into the Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It contains several well used public rights of way (PRoW) including part of the long distance South West Coast Path. This landscape is of national significance and is referred to hereafter as the ‘heritage land’. 2.3 The SPW may represent the only opportunity to implement landscaping measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of the development until such time as the development has been completed (i.e. during the lengthy construction phase). Should the IPC reconsider the SPW, the landscape mitigation proposed for the construction phase of the development should be improved. 2.4 NNB propose to mitigate adverse impacts on views from the heritage land during the SPW with a temporary bund of varying height which will not screen views effectively leaving the construction activities visible from extensive areas of Fairfield Estate and the surrounding landscape. NNB’s proposed planting using predominantly small deciduous stock (80-100cm high) would not provide effective screening for several years in this coastal location. 2.5 The Landscape Strategy (LS) notes substantial quantities of excavated material will become and remain available during the Site Preparation Works. This material could be used to increase the height of the bund to at least 3.0m high in relation to the platforms and haul roads. A bund of this height would screen lower level construction activities. 2.6 The bund is temporary only (i.e. remaining during the construction phases only) and is not intended to mitigate adverse visual impacts arising from the HPC development. 2.7 Despite the fact that the SPW will have a major adverse impact on views, local landscape character, landscape quality, tranquillity and distinctiveness, the screening and mitigation proposed by NNB during the construction phases of the development (including the SPW) is inadequate at best. 3 Reinstatement and s.106 Agreement 3.1 The s.106 Agreement relating to the SPW has been carefully negotiated by the Councils, NNB and the Estate. The s.106 Agreement provides, inter alia, for safeguards to ensure the reinstatement of the site in the event that the DCO is granted but not proceeded with so as to limit the duration of the adverse impacts which would result from a partially developed site. 3.2 These safeguards are an important material consideration. NNB has not provided a convincing justification as to why the provisions of the s.106 Agreement should be avoided. Temporary Jetty – Works TJ1,2,3&0 4 General Comments 4.1 As with the SPW, it is confusing for this element of the development to be subject to two parallel planning processes aimed at achieving the same result (see para 1 above). 4.2 The Estate made its case fully in relation to the temporary jetty during the course of the recent three week Inquiry which was convened to consider (inter alia) an application for a Harbour Empowerment Order for the construction and operation of the same. The Estate's principal concerns related to landscape and visual impact (including the scale, siting and appearance of the on-shore infrastructure and lack of effective landscape mitigation), impact on cliff stability, and the lack of adequate safeguards to secure the reinstatement of the site. The same considerations apply to proposed Works TJ1, TJ2, TJ3 and TJ0. 5 Securing the removal of the jetty and on-shore infrastructure 5.1 Work TJ0 provides for the removal of the temporary jetty. However, the timing of the removal of the jetty is not secured thus leaving the removal of the jetty at the discretion of NNB. The removal of the jetty should be secured on the face of the Order (which should also contain requirements to ensure the impacts of removal are mitigated adequately). 6 Landscape and Visual Impact 6.1 The Temporary Jetty includes proposals for large scale onshore infrastructure, notably ~20.0m high (~40m AOD) sand shed and silos, aggregates stockpiles, lighting, and a perimeter haul road that would be highly visible in an elevated location next to the heritage land. The infrastructure would be constructed prior to commencement of the HPC development and would be operational throughout its construction for not less than 10.5 years in total. Throughout this time there would be long term major adverse visual and landscape impacts from the Temporary Jetty on the adjoining heritage land and those who use and enjoy it. 6.2 Although the Estate continues to discuss with the Applicant additional mitigation for the Temporary Jetty, including screening within the north west boundary of the HPC development and the siting and design of the infrastructure, no measures are proposed to screen the development other than the SPW bund which, as noted above, would not mitigate adverse visual and landscape impacts caused by the development sufficiently. 6.3 The operation of the Temporary Jetty infrastructure and construction of the HPC development are inextricably linked causing major adverse interactive impacts of long term duration. Therefore adequate mitigation is essential in advance of the construction and operation of the Temporary Jetty to reduce major adverse landscape and visual impacts on the adjoining high quality landscape and those who use and enjoy it. 7 Cliff Stability 7.1 The cliff is a dynamic and unstable coastal environment (6m retreat predicted in 10 years) and in a ‘metastable’ condition (close to collapse at any time). Construction use and demolition activities could adversely impact upon current stability by accelerating rock fall and cliff retreat and resulting in the loss of existing loose material from the existing cliff, through vibration by heavy plant and piling/drilling equipment. During the operational phase, the conveyor belt and roadway (utilised to transport many thousands of tonnes of aggregate) could result in the development of vibration with cyclic loading from loaded trucks. It is, therefore, necessary to include adequate controls to protect the cliff from accelerated retreat. No such controls exist in the draft restrictions. 8 Requirements and Obligations 8.1 The draft DCO contains just two requirements relating to the construction or operation of the temporary jetty. For example, there are no requirements relating to the method of construction, the hours of working, the generation of noise, vibration, dust or light. These requirements are inadequate to control the construction, operation, use and dismantling of the Temporary Jetty and the associated on-shore infrastructure. 8.2 The bilateral agreement entered into by NNB and the Council in respect of the temporary jetty contained reinstatement covenants to mirror those agreed in connection with the SPW to prevent the Site from remaining partially developed for an unlimited period of time. 8.3 We would reiterate that any powers granted pursuant to the DCO should be synchronised with existing consents and made subject to the same controls (see paragraph 1). Hinkley Point C Power Station – Work 1A 9 Ensuring Completion of the Development 9.1 There are no provisions in the DCO which provide for its expiration. Accordingly, NNB would be at liberty, should it so wish, to implement the DCO and then to leave the site in a partially developed state for an unlimited period of time whilst maintaining the validity of the consent. Such a situation is foreseeable in a number of situations (for example in the event that the financial incentives available to NNB are not as anticipated or in the event of a more significant change such as a U-turn in national policy (such as that seen in Germany)). 9.2 Leaving the site in a partially developed state for any period of time will have significant adverse impacts. This is particularly the case given the insufficiency of the proposed landscape mitigation and screening proposed prior to the completion of the development. 9.3 Further, the impact of HPC is justified by the urgent need for new nuclear power stations. Should the above situation occur (i.e. partial development of the site) the consent system will have failed in its objectives to deliver new nuclear power stations but the significant adverse impacts will have nonetheless been allowed. Provision must be made on the face of the Order to prevent this occurrence. For example, the Estate seeks provisions to secure the reinstatement of the site by NNB in the event that the site has remained partially developed with no progress being made for a significant period of time or if there is no likelihood of the development being progressed or the development has not been completed by a certain date (2025 has been previously agreed by NNB). Financial security should be given to secure reinstatement in these circumstances. In addition, the Estate considers that the reinstatement of the Site should be guaranteed by an appropriate public body in the event of default by NNB. 10 Decommissioning of Hinkley Point C 10.1 HPC will have a finite working life. As demonstrated by the continued presence of HPA, it is important to ensure that responsibility for actual decommissioning has been properly secured for future generations. 10.2 Whilst we appreciate that decommissioning is dealt with pursuant to the Energy Act 2008, at this stage the detail of the proposals for decommissioning HPC is unclear and will remain unclear until NNB submits its funded decommissioning programme. It is entirely appropriate for the planning system to be concerned not just with the decommissioning of Hinkley Point C but also the fully validated restoration of the site. 10.3 It is understood from our discussions with the Office of the Energy Minister that decommissioning will be funded by the payment of sums of money into a fund on yearly basis. However, it is entirely unclear how this approach will secure and fully fund decommissioning or restoration in the event that the station is only partially developed or is only operative for a few years. 10.4 Full and timely decommissioning must, therefore, be considered and secured at this stage. 10.5 NNB indicate that land will be temporarily required for the plant’s decommissioning. Their proposal fails to identify to what extent further areas outside of the station would be required to support that decommissioning. The Estate is not prepared to make any additional land available for this purpose. In addition NNB fail to clarify what is meant by appropriate restoration after completion of decommissioning. 10.6 As noted below, Hinkley Point A (HPA) is in the course of being decommissioned by the NDA and Hinkley Point B (HPB) is coming to the end of its useful life. It is, therefore, at least foreseeable that land will become available for use. There should be an obligation to use the previously developed land in preference to Greenfield land to facilitate decommissioning Hinkley Point C. 10.7 These matters should be clarified and secured before the DCO is granted. 11 Efficient Use of Land 11.1 Insufficient efforts have been made to secure the use of land which is or may become surplus comprised in the Hinkley Point A and B Stations. 11.2 There is a national policy imperative to ensure that new development makes the best use of previously developed land. HPA is currently controlled by the NDA, a body whose remit is to secure the decommissioning and clean up sites to enable the reuse of land. HPB is nearing the end of its useful life and is owned and controlled by a company in the same group as NNB. 11.3 In the case of HPC, it does not appear that sufficient effort has been made by NNB or the relevant bodies to sustainably utilise land that is currently occupied by buildings comprising HPA and HPB. 11.4 Not all of the land comprised in HPA requires nuclear decommissioning. Further areas of hard-standing could be used for compound/parking and the storage of costly plant and equipment etc in areas deemed secure. 11.5 At the very least, we would expect the application documents to fully set out the stage reached by NNB in its negotiations in respect of the use of land or indeed buildings at HPA and/or HPB that is available or may become available in the future. An open and independently verifiable assessment should have been made of the land that is or could become surplus and which could be utilised in the construction, operation or decommissioning of HPC. 11.6 The ES fails to fully consider the overall environmental impacts that will occur at the time of the decommissioning of HPA/B and the currently operational HPB. The IPC’s scoping opinion (April ’10; Section 3.44) also highlights the issue. Following recent case law (March 2011) demolition activity can also constitute a “project” under 85/337/EEC and the EU’s guidelines also address these “Impact Interactions”. 11.7 NNB propose a shared use of some off-site features that will also, for example, be used for the decommissioning of Hinkley A and the operational phase of Hinkley B. These include the local road network and the Combwich “roll-on-roll-off” facility. Shared-use of these features underpin the need to address these further off-site environmental issues tabled under 11.6. 12 Landscape and Visual Impact 12.1 The Estate considers that NNB has not complied with relevant national, regional and local planning policy by failing to provide reasonable mitigation to moderate adverse impacts during the construction phases of the Project on the landscape of the heritage land which is valued at national level for its outstanding scenic and historic interest or on the surrounding landscape in general. 12.2 Serious discrepancies exist between the definitions of temporary (i.e. construction) impacts in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Approach and Methodology for the assessment as a whole and for the landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA). It is accepted that more extreme adverse landscape and visual impacts will arise during construction due to the nature of the activities involved compared to those at operation, and that mitigation may not be so essential because of their temporary nature. The EIA methodology uses timescales normally applied to large scale construction projects and categorises short term impacts as less than one year; medium term as one to five years; and long term as greater than five years. By contrast the LVIA describes short term as up to five years; medium term as between five and fifteen years; and long term as fifteen or more years. The overall construction period for HPC is abnormally long and is programmed to last at least 14.5 years so falls within the EIA and commonly accepted category of long term duration; the LVIA defines the duration as medium term. The LVIA definitions are subjective and call into question the robustness of the assessment of adverse construction impacts. The nature of all adverse landscape and visual impacts relating to Fairfield Estate have been incorrectly assessed as being of medium– instead of long-term duration during construction. Consequently the need to mitigate significant adverse impacts has not been appreciated and the measures proposed are inadequate. 12.3 The Environmental Statement (ES) does not consider fully the adverse landscape and visual impacts that would arise from construction of HPC in relation to the heritage land to the west where several large scale “temporary” buildings and structures will be visually prominent in addition to the Temporary Jetty infrastructure. 12.4 Construction and restoration will last approximately 14.5 years during which time working will take place over prolonged working hours and will have a major adverse impact on views and the tranquillity of the adjoining heritage land. 12.5 No measures other than the SPW bund on the northwest boundary of HPC are proposed to mitigate adverse landscape and visual impacts on the heritage land or surrounding landscape. The proposed bund would not be effective and the Estate considers NNB could undertake further measures in relation to the design of the bund and “temporary” buildings to reduce adverse landscape and visual impacts. 12.6 Adequate mitigation during the construction phases of the Project should be secured by way of a planning obligation or Requirement. 12.7 The ES and LS do not demonstrate through visual analysis that the restored landform and associated woodland planting on the western boundary of HPC would achieve the level of screening claimed, or that sufficient quantities of material would be available to construct the landform. Several discrepancies exist between visualisations in the ES, LS and the HPC Development Design and Access Statement (HPC DAS). Further information to clarify the inconsistencies between the visualisations and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the screening landform and planting will be effective from the heritage land must be provided to enable the IPC and members of the public to fully understand and consider the impact of the development. 12.8 The ES and LS do not describe how the construction site will be restored or managed in the long term to ensure successful establishment of agricultural land and woodland planting. This information should also be provided and, if acceptable, secured by way of obligation or Requirement. 12.9 Overhead electricity transmission lines are prominent in the visualisations provided in the ES, LS and HPC DAS. The lines add to the visual clutter on the site and exacerbate its visual impact. Whilst it is noted the proposals for the transmission lines are indicative and subject to a separate DCO application, in so far as the transmission lines are within the scope of the DCO, they should be installed underground so as to minimise visual impact from the heritage land and the wider surrounding landscape. 12.10 The ES and LS state (incorrectly) that off-site mitigation planting proposals have been prepared by the Estate in consultation with NNB to screen the construction works. The off-site planting has been voluntarily carried out by Estate and is intended to protect the Estate’s heritage assets in a wider context when HPC is in operation, and indirectly benefit the public, where mitigation could not be achieved within the HPC site; it is not intended to contribute to NNB’s planning responsibilities. This planting will not (and is not intended to) mitigate adverse impacts arising from any construction activities. Further, the planting is on land outside the control of NNB and outside the scope of the DCO application and cannot, therefore, be subject to any Requirements or Obligations. 13 Design and Appearance 13.1 The Estate does not agree with NNB’s claim that the extent of screening provided at restoration will leave only ‘an uncluttered view of the nuclear reactor domes, turbine halls and pylons… that would visually integrate with the coastal landscape’. From the information provided it is likely that several low level buildings will be visible creating an extensive industrialised landscape when viewed from the heritage land. 14 Impact on Amenity Noise & Vibration 14.1 The construction of the Project will generate considerable noise and vibration. The proposed requirements to address and encourage the minimisation of noise are insufficient and the physical mitigation proposed (such as bunding) is unlikely to be effective to screen or reduce noise. 14.2 There are no Requirements relating to noise levels generated during the operational phase of the Project. It is entirely inappropriate for the generation of noise to be entirely unrestricted in this respect particularly given that clause 7 of the draft DCO provides a defence against statutory nuisance claims thus leaving those affected by the noise without a remedy. 14.3 There are no restrictions or controls on the generation of vibration. Controls on vibration are important in terms of impact on nearby residential occupiers and also from the point of view of the integrity of the cliff. Such controls should be included in the Requirements. Lighting 14.4 Lighting is an issue of great concern for the Estate that, if not adequately controlled, could have a significant adverse impact on the landscape, wildlife and on residents and visitors to this remote rural area. 14.5 For the construction phase, responsibility for lighting will largely fall upon contractors who are to be required to comply with the NNB lighting strategy. That strategy is open to the contractor’s interpretation and fails to outline any NNB policy on lighting. It also fails to identify how disputes will be resolved, particularly between contractors, and how enforcement and investigations will be addressed towards resolution. 14.6 NNB note that construction difficulties do not allow exact illumination requirements to be precisely defined and that light levels may be exceeded at times. Any such exceedances must be objectively justified as being necessary (rather than convenient) and limited in area and duration. Such exceedances must be part of an approvals process, with implementation monitored independently. 14.7 Task lighting is identified by NNB as a requirement for the construction. As above, such lighting needs to be adequately justified and controlled and monitored independently. Task lighting does not extend in the ES to lighting provided by and/or emanating from vehicles. Such lighting should also be controlled. 14.8 NNB are to develop a computer model to analyse lighting use and luminaire positioning. The use of a recognised model, or one that is validated for intended use, is essential. This is imperative since the mitigation proposed via a contractor’s interpretation and the use of bunds is unlikely to be effective to screen or reduce light spill. Dust 14.9 Emphasis has been placed by NNB on a longer term solution to dust mitigation via the landscaping work and construction of a bund. Greater application to controlling dust and PM10 during the early construction phase has to be considered and implemented. The impact of dust is an important issue for the Estate as much of the surrounding land is arable farmland. Dust will have a significant adverse impact on crops and must be adequately controlled. 15 Transport 15.1 Key road links have been selected by NNB, who touch upon a process for transferring workers to and from Park and Ride facilities during the construction of HPC. Their statement is however silent on what measures are to be put in place to prevent routes being taken that utilise inappropriate lanes to the west and through the hamlets of Stogursey, Shurton, Burton etc. NNB must implement robust measures that prevent such movements of site-bound traffic and these measures (together with appropriate monitoring) must be secured by way of obligation or Requirement. 15.2 The construction traffic for the Project (particularly prior to the completion of the Temporary Jetty) will have a significant and prolonged adverse impact on the local road network. This impact will be particularly pronounced before the completion of the construction of the temporary jetty during which period all freight will have to arrive by road. It is, therefore, important to ensure the delivery of the Cannington bypass at the earliest possible stage of the development in order to alleviate the very severe impact on the residents of Cannington. 15.3 However, the construction of Cannington bypass and the HPC development are both due to start in Q1/2013. The bypass should be completed prior to the commencement of development of HPC so as to minimise the impact on local residents. In the event that the IPC is not minded to impose such a requirement, the delivery of the bypass must be linked to an effective limit on vehicular movements which cannot be exceeded until such time as the bypass has been delivered. 15.4 Construction of the bypass is to be during daytime hours (Mon-Sat) over 21 months. The Estate considers it appropriate for an earlier start to be made with greater use of seven day working to expedite completion. 15.5 Permanent traffic calming management measures within Cannington would also be introduced by NNB by the time the bypass is opened. These traffic management measures should be introduced in advance of the commencement of the overall construction programme. 15.6 NNB state that the Bridgwater bypass was neither needed nor appropriate because of a number of reasons concluded by the transport assessment. The Estate asserts that an insufficient investigation into the feasibility and necessity of a Bridgwater bypass has been made; particularly since the road network will be used jointly by the construction programme and for the decommissioning of Hinkley ‘A’ and ‘B’ and will continue to be used by existing users of the local road network including local residents, workers and holiday makers. 15.7 NNB assert that any rail passenger or freight link to the Hinkley ‘C’ site would need to operate via an existing rail head and that Williton and Bridgwater were taken forward for consideration. The Estate contends that an insufficient assessment concerning the potential movement of freight to and from an existing rail head in the vicinity of Bridgwater has been made. 16 Proposed storage and disposal of Nuclear waste including the logistics away from site 16.1 The Estate is aware that the IPC has no remit to assess management of radioactive wastes. Nevertheless, the Estate seeks assurances that it will have adequate opportunity to review and comment upon such arrangements during all phases of the project. Contaminated Land 16.2 Although characterisation of the ground has been undertaken, it is conceivable that radioactive contamination may be encountered during construction. No contingency measures have been identified if such contamination was encountered. 16.3 Any ground contamination caused during site operations must be managed actively and the spread of contamination must not be allowed to impact adjacent lands, groundwater or the estuary. Processing and Storage of Solid Waste on Site 16.4 NNB has proposed the construction of only one Intermediate Level Waste (“ILW”) Interim Storage Facility (“ISF”). The Estate is concerned that multiple construction phases could take place in the future. NNB should demonstrate that only one ILWISF will house all of the ILW generated at site (from the operational phase through final site clearance). 16.5 Estimates of potential ILW decommissioning wastes are precise with no uncertainty ranges defined. If NNB is indeed going to construct a single ILWISF for the life of the site, what assurance can be given that the facility will be able to cope with the volumes of waste to be generated during both the operation and decommissioning? 16.6 NNB propose to store spent fuel on site in an Interim Spent Fuel Store (ISFS). There appears to be confusion regarding its design life. The Environmental Statement (ES) quotes 100 years and the Environmental Appraisal states 100 years “following the end of reactor life”. NNB is asked to confirm the design life. 16.7 NNB state that ILW will remain on site until power generation is complete; and that ILW will be transferred for off-site disposal once a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) becomes available. NNB must be required to clarify its strategy for on-site management and final disposal of ILW (including security provisions). Consent should not be granted without a long term strategy for the final disposal of ILW which required the removal of ILW to off-site storage facilities at the earliest possible stage. Upper limits should be imposed on the length of time for which ILW can be stored on site. Controls should also be imposed to prevent the storage of waste from other facilities at Hinkley Point. 16.8 It is understood that NNB propose that very low level radioactive waste (VLLW) will be accumulated on site and then disposed of at appropriate licensed facilities. The Estate is concerned that poorly managed piles of VLLW will accumulate on site; leading to the possibility that contaminated dusts etc. would migrate off-site and contaminate adjacent land. NNB must be required to put in place robust and enforceable plans for the management of VLLW. Off-site Disposal of Solid Waste 16.9 NNB state that VLLW would be treated on site and then disposed of at authorized facilities. Such facilities are currently rare in the UK. NNB should be required to define the disposal location for VLLW, the transport mechanisms to be used (including security arrangements) and the frequency of VLLW shipments from Hinkley Point ‘C’ to the disposal site. 16.10 LLW will be transferred to the Low Level Waste Repository at Drigg for disposal. Transport mechanisms and the timing of shipments have again not been identified. The Estate is concerned that shipments of radioactive waste will disrupt the local community. NNB should be required to set out the relevant details regarding these wastes. Treatment and Discharge of Gaseous Waste 16.11 The Estate believes that there is ambiguity in NNB’s Planning submission. Early documents indicate that all radioactive gaseous effluent will be discharged via the main stack. Various additional stacks have, however, been identified. NNB should be required to confirm the location of all stacks that will be used for radioactive discharges and to confirm whether dispersion modelling has been based upon the use of multiple stacks or relies upon a point source discharge from the main stack. 16.12 The height of the main gaseous effluent discharge stack is unclear. NNB reports appear to range from 70m to 80 m. Since the height has an impact on the results of atmospheric dispersion modelling (as well as the overall visual impact), NNB should be required to confirm the design specification and that the air dispersion modelling ensures that the impact assessment reflects the final construction design. Off-site Disposal of Contaminated Oils 16.13 NNB states an intention to treat radioactively contaminated waste oil at licensed incinerators. The Estate is concerned that there are few incinerators licensed to accept such contaminated oils in the UK. It should be demonstrated that a suitable incinerator has been identified in line with the proximity principle adopted by the Environment Agency (EA). Processing of Liquid Effluent 16.14 Very little detail regarding the processing and discharge of liquid radioactive waste has been offered by NNB. It should be demonstrated that liquid radioactive waste discharges are being minimized and are aligned with Best Available Technique (BAT) required for the environmental permitting regime. 17 On Site Campus 17.1 Given the remote location of the site and the relative proximity of the sizeable town of Bridgwater, priority should be given to minimising the size of the campus and maximising the re-use of land within Bridgwater. 17.2 Bridgwater has the capacity to assimilate, without difficulty, the of workforce numbers proposed to be accommodated on site. The town offers a number of opportunities for the redevelopment of unused or underused previously developed sites with close proximity of local services and to leave a positive legacy when construction of HPC has been completed. Locating the workforce within Bridgwater will also provide an economic boost to the town. 17.3 Accordingly, from an environmental, economic and social point of view, the most sustainable option is to house workers, in so far as possible, within Bridgwater. 17.4 Further the introduction of a relatively large, semi itinerant, predominantly male population into an isolated location can have an unfortunate impact on local people (as was experienced during the construction of HPB). 17.5 The Estate does not object to a small number of workers being accommodated on site in so far as is necessary to provide essential security or emergency cover. However, the proposed on-site campus remains of a size that is excessive for this purpose. 17.6 Noise from campus is not adequately controlled. There are no Requirements in the draft DCO limiting noise levels. In addition there is insufficient information as to how the campus “Code of Conduct” will be enforced, supervised and consequences addressed and observations monitored. 17.7 The bund design proposed by NNB is unlikely to be of sufficient height to screen noise or views of the campus; especially given that the accommodation units are expected to be of an unspecified height equivalent to 3-storeys. The height of the buildings must be set at this stage to enable an informed consideration of the likely visual and noise impact of the campus. 17.8 For the main construction zones, it is understood that tertiary treated sewage will be discharged to the foreshore. NNB propose that treated sanitary effluent from the campus will be discharged into the stream referred to by NNB as ‘Holford stream’. The Estate contest the need for this, given the availability of the sea outfall. 17.9 NNB state that there is to be no direct pedestrian or road access from the campus to the village of Shurton. They add that measures will prevent shortcuts to Shurton and Stogursey. However NNB also refer to an infrequently used emergency access point (gated and locked) and are silent on the gate design and whether pedestrian access might be feasible. This emergency access must be kept for emergencies only. 17.10 Routine security issues are only touched upon by NNB. Whilst the Estate notes that these will be addressed through DECC, they are concerned that security aspects deemed lower priority by DECC but important locally, may be overlooked. 18 Cliff Stability and Sea Wall 18.1 The draft DCO does not appear to contain any Requirements relating to the stability of the cliff in relation to the main Project. The cliff is an important geological structure and needs to be adequately protected. 18.2 We note that a sea wall is proposed at the eastern end of the Estate (western part of the HPC Development) with rock armour extending onto the foreshore. Adequate safeguards and good construction management protocols (EMP’s and CEMP’s) should be put in pace for all construction works on the foreshore and in the vicinity of the cliff line. 18.3 As part of the decommissioning phase, NNB do not propose to remove the sea wall. Their proposal fails to identify who will be responsible for maintaining the sea wall left in legacy after site decommissioning. 18.4 If not maintained, the sea wall is likely to have an impact on the cliff face in particular at the wall edge where there may be risk of scouring and erosion behind the sea wall. Any such impacts need to be adequately controlled. 19 Habitats 19.1 Himalayan Balsam is identified by NNB as an “Invasive Species” (found around Bum Brook) that requires measures to prevent it spreading. The Estate is concerned that no contingency measures have been identified in the event that that this species or other invasive plant is encountered during mainly the construction phase. The concern extends to understanding what awareness training will be put in place for contractors to identify such species that may only have a seasonal appearance. 19.2 The so called Holford Stream and Bum Brook are both identified as flowing into and being important to Wick Moor SSSI/SPA. Emphasis has been placed by NNB on preventing pollution to the incoming water but no consideration has been made about understanding the composition of the incoming water which may also be key to receptors and seasonal. 20 Requirements and Obligations 20.1 The Estate considers that the Requirements, as drafted by NNB, are insufficient and fail to adequately deal with the issues raised above. 20.2 The Estate shares the views of the Councils that the sums offered by NNB are insufficient to mitigate the impact of the project on the local area. 21 Draft DCO and Development Consent Obligations 21.1 The Estate reserves its right to comment on the detailed drafting of the Development Consent Order and Development Consent Obligations and on any new matters that may come to light at the written representations stage."

Burnham-on-Sea & Highbridge Town Council
"Members of Burnham on Sea and Highbridge Town Council have serious concerns about the following matters: A temporary or permanent increase in the local population and the impact on the availability of housing stock for existing local residents, particularly in relation to affordable housing. The potential impact on tourism, particularly the proposals to use holiday park accommodation in Brean and the impact of a large one-gender population in an area popular with families. This statement is made in the knowledge that tourism plays a vital part in the economy of Burnham on Sea and Highbridge and the surrounding area. Concerns about the effect of a substantial influx of workers and their families on local resources such as healthcare, education and policing and other emergency services.. The lack of any designated Park and Ride facilities for our towns, and the likeliehood of traffic congestion (and pollution) from the volume of vehicles travelling to the nearest collection point. Potential impact on water pollution in the Severn Estuary by any waste discharges from the site. Environmental impact of the proposed temporary jetty on the existing eco-structure in an area recognsied as a SSSI, and on fishing in the Severn Estuary. This view supports concerns brought to the attention of the Town Council by local boat owners and fishermen. No binding agreement has yet been reached on measures (both physical and financial) to minimise the impact of such a major development both in Burnham on Sea and Highbridge,m and the larger surroudnign area. The above ppoints are the views of the Town Council as a body made up of 18 elected members with an excellent local knowledge of the parish of Burnham on Sea and Highbridge and the surrounding area."

Cara Naden
"I totally DISAGREE with the Hinkley C application on numerous reasons. On fuel security - the UK does not produce radioactive matter which runs the power station. The country will have to rely on external countries to sell us their radioactive matter. The Friends of the Earth have worked out there is only 50 years worth of radioactive matter in the world, from many countries of which have poor human rights and environmental legislation. CO2 free - Nuclear power stations are not Carbon neutral due to all the energy required in mining, transportations, processing, etc. These processes are not Carbon neutral. Safety in mining, transporting, processing, waste removal and storage are also not guaranteed. People who live near existing nuclear power stations and waste dumps are more likely to suffer from nuclear toxic poisoning. There are serious health implications. We should have learnt from Russia and Japan that nuclear power is unsafe. We should follow the leads of Germany and invest in all renewable energy systems instead. Nuclear is more expensive than renewable energy which will give us true energy security. Nuclear is not good value for money nor a legacy we want to leave our descendants. When Hinkley is hit by flood water (which it will as it is on a flood plain) it will be responsible for making the whole of the SW uninhabitable. Can EDF guarantee the safety of a nuclear power station they have never built nor have expereince running? Are the people of the UK aware that this proposed power station has never been built or commissioned before?! Is this not too big a risk for the survival of people in this part of the world? http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/issues/nuclear_index.html It will not generate loads of local jobs - most contractors will come from migrant workers - temporary accommodation has been provided for them already. Local firms have already been disappointed by EDF's procurement process. The proposal for Hinkley C is to build on protected habitats. This is illegal. I have evidence that no-one is allowed to harm any of the flora or fauna on this SSSI. EDF are already in breach of this as is the District Council who gave pre planning permission to start the ground works. There are rare sand dwelling animals that have been recorded near the existing Hinkley C which must be protected. This is too much a short term expensive gamble. A representative of EDF even said that this is a high risk energy system! Invest in safer technologies which can come on line quicker than nuclear power and will last longer with less risk."

NHS Somerset
"The issues, as an organisation, we would wish examined in more depth by the IPC, relate to identified health pathways in the health Impact Assessment(ref 8.15). The impacts of concern particularly relate to the construction phase; they are in summary: 1. Impact of changes in noise exposure of local residents in health and wellbeing The health action plan does not make provision for impact of increased traffic noise 2. Impact of changes in local transport and flow rates on health and wellbeing of local population The Health impact assessment identifies no increase in road safety risk, however, some road users are likely to be put off being on the roads, notably cyclists, by the large numbers of HGVs. Numbers of cyclists have been increasing in recent years, a trend that is accelerating due to pressure on household budgets leading to switching from more expensive forms of travel. Perceived safety is very important in determining whether people, especially women, will cycle. While overall risk of fatality/accident may not increase, this may be due to suppressed active travel and/or there may be disproportionate increases for some classes of road user. Alternatively, the if cycling continues to increase this may increase the number of cyclist injuries. 3. Impact of changes in local population structure on local health care requirements Section 7.4 of the health action plan outlines several measures intended to mitigate the potential pressures on the local health service. We have concerns over several areas • The provision of occupational health services for employees is a positive development but the proposal does not take into account all expected health care needs of the workforce. In particular further mitigation is required to account for the urgent and emergency care of these workers when not in the workplace such as out of working hours including urgent dental care. • The true health costs for the families of workers moving to the area have been underestimated. • The GP workforce capacity calculations contained in section 5.8.9 are out of date and require updating to enable an accurate assessment of the impact on the local health service. • The residual costs for healthcare for workers appear to be underestimated and may be due to the methodology using figures from the Olympic Park development where the wide availability of alternative NHS suppliers permitting self referral may have led to an underestimate of the true costs. 4. Impact of the development on community health and wellbeing Section 7.4 of the health action plan outlines the expectation that existing counselling services will provide support for mental health impacts of the development We believe that many of the social impacts may not require counselling but rather improved community integration of the workforce. This could be achieved using a health and wellbeing liaison worker to the benefit of the local population and the EDF workforce. Under current proposals an independent community development post would require funding from the community Impact fund. We have concerns that the fund may be insufficient to cater for all the potential demands for funding and argue for separate funding for a community wellbeing development post."

Bristol City Council
"Bristol City Council objects to the proposal for Hinkley Point C Power Station. The Council disagrees with the proposal for the following reasons: 1. Inefficient and poor use of resources in the face of alternative and safer sources of energy. 2. Constraint placed on the effective delivery of alternative renewable energy network in the Hinkley Point area. 3. Impact of the proposed use on the environment of the Severn Estuary with in combination effects which could not be mitigated. 4. It is also understood that the site may, at a future date, be licensed to store high-level nuclear waste for over 100 years. There are potential risks associated with such storage for the local population, including Bristol residents, and an acceptable solution to the storage of high-level nuclear waste should be agreed and implemented before additional reactors are built."

Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Service
"The Quantock Hills AONB Service states an objection to the proposed development of HPC on the basis that it will have adverse visual impacts in views from (and to) the nationally protected landscape of the Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The low-lying West Somerset countryside surrounding the AONB has a special interrelationship with, and lends significant character to, the Quantock Hills. HPC will lead to further industrialisation of the landscape at Hinkley Point - making the site significantly more conspicuous and dominant in much-valued Quantock views. As such we believe development of HPC will adversely affect the character and special qualities of England’s first AONB and is contrary to the Primary Purpose of AONBs which is to conserve and enhance natural beauty. With regard to the Environmental Statement, the Quantock Hills AONB Service is concerned that: • Judgements of impact and residual impact significance within Chapter 22 (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) are underestimated. We ask that the IPC inspectors visit the viewpoints within the AONB to consider the judgements made and to compare real-eye views with the photomontages provided and the supporting narrative; • The cumulative visual impacts of HPC and its associated development sites does not appear to have been tackled e.g. impact on sequential viewing experiences as people pass through the Quantock Hills and the effects of seeing HPC and other associated developments within the same viewshed; • Impacts on tranquillity (or perceptions of remoteness) do not appear to have been dealt with in a comprehensive way. For example, the cumulative impacts of industrialisation of views, increased traffic pressures on rural lanes crossing the hills and increased light pollution affecting the rural night skies. These issues need to be considered in conjunction with one another for an understanding of combined impacts as opposed to impacts in isolation; Two specific points regarding Chapter 22 (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) are: • Site preparation works, including site clearance works, removal of vegetation, excavations etc are included as part of the main HPC construction works. We believe this formed part of the works consented under planning application number 3/32/10/037 (application made to West Somerset Council on 26th November 2010) and so it is unclear why this should be included under the LVIA for the main HPC application; and • Policy EN3 of the Draft Revised Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South West has not been referenced in the baseline information and is an important omission given that the RSS is referenced and policy EN1 quoted (Chapter 22, para 22.3.48). Policy EN3 states that “…particular care will be taken to ensure that no development is permitted outside the National Park or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which would damage their natural beauty, character and special qualities or otherwise prejudice the achievement of National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty purposes”. We hope these points will be given due consideration during the examination process."

Vernon Hughes
"I am opposed to the application in most respects but agree with edf in one aspect of the application. The scale of the proposal is too large for the environment in which it sits. This comment extends to the proposed pylons. Smaller scale projects have less impact and being more decentralised result in less power loss. The public is has not been sufficiently informed about the plans for storage of radioactive waste. If a radioactive waste storage site had been proposed it would have received great public scrutiny. Incorporating waste storage in this application appears to be trying to get it through by the "back door" In the period over which the waste produced by this proposal has to be stored there can be no guarantee of social stability required for the safe management of the waste. Even in the relatively brief time since the last Hinkley C enquiry terrorists have flown planes into skyscrapers and Britain has fought 2 wars in the name of protecting ourselves against attack. I am satisfied that our technical competance can handle nuclear materials safely now but climate change, population increase and possible epidemics make the future increasingly uncertain. Little long-term (ie 100 years +) contingency planning has been included I support edf in its opposition to requests to build a new bridge across the River Parrett. Whilst this may have a benefit during the construction phase, the long-term legacy would be increased traffic on the A39 west of Bridgwater. Local councils have often complained about the chaos that ensues when an accident occurs on that road. I do not understand why they want a bridge that satnavs will use to direct traffic from the M5 to north Devon and west Somerset."

Natural England
"Natural England is a non-departmental public body body established under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Natural England is the statutory advisor to Government on nature conservation in England (including out to 12 nautical miles from the English coast) and promotes the conservation of England’s wildlife and natural features. Natural England is a statutory consultee in respect of: i. plans or projects that are subject to the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the “Habitats Regulations”) and may have a likely significant effect on European sites (including both Special Areas of Conservation (“SAC”) and Special Protection Areas (“SPA”), and, by way of Government policy, sites listed under the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (“Ramsar site”)) and; ii. in relation to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (the “1981 Act”), proposals likely to damage any of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features for which a Site of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”) has been notified. Natural England is also, pursuant to section 84 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Government’s statutory advisor in relation to Areas of Outstanding National Beauty (“AoNB”). In determining this application, the Secretary of State will be acting as the competent authority for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations. The Secretary of State is also a section 28G authority with specific duties under the 1981 Act in respect of the SSSIs. Natural England’s comments are based on information submitted by EDF in support of its application for a Development Consent Order (“DCO”) in relation to nuclear new build at Hinkley Point C (the “project”). Headline Representations Natural England: 1. is not satisfied on the basis of the information submitted that, for purposes of the Habitats Regulations, the project will not have a likely significant effect on then Severn Estuary SAC, SPA and Ramsar site, and, accordingly, advises that an appropriate assessment is necessary; 2. advises on the basis of the information submitted that is not satisfied, for the purposes of the 1981 Act, that the project is not likely to damage the Bridgwater Bay SSSI and the Blue Anchor to Lilstock Bay SSSI; 3. advises that in order to limit negative impacts on landscape, including views from the Quantock Hills AoNB, the principles and activities identified in the applicant’s “Landscape Strategy” must be required and all proposals for landscape protection and restoration are implemented; and 4. advises that the project, if approved, is subject to all necessary and appropriate requirements (or conditions), which ensure that unacceptable environmental impacts either do not occur or are sufficiently mitigated. Natural England makes the following and more specific representations in relation to each of the following topics: Coastal Geomorphology/Hydrodynamics 1. In relation to the estuary habitat feature of the Severn Estuary SAC and Ramsar site as well as the Bridgwater Bay SSSI, potential negative effects are associated with dredged material being disposed of outside of the estuary, which would undermine the estuary’s “sediment budget.” A requirement is therefore needed to ensure that all dredged material is disposed of and maintained within the estuary; 2. In relation to the possible loss of the salt marsh habitat feature of the Severn Estuary SAC, Ramsar site and the Bridgwater Bay SSSI, potential negative effects are associated with vessel movements to and from the Combwich Wharf facility. Should the DCO be made a requirement is therefore needed to ensure that vessel speeds and the frequency of vessel movements do not result in unacceptable effects, and that an appropriate monitoring scheme is put in place to verify this over the term of such vessel movements; and 3. In relation to the geological features of interest to the Blue Anchor to Lilstock Bay SSSI, potential negative effects associated with the additional rock armouring that could impact on the rate of natural erosion of those features. Marine Ecology 4. In relation to fish for which the Severn Estuary SAC and Ramsar site are designated, potential negative effects are associated with: i. Fish impingement: • There is insufficient evidence to confirm that the Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD) and Fish Recovery and Return (FRR) technologies will be as effective as the applicant suggests; • There is no evidence to show that current proposals for testing of AFD and FRR during early operation will not result in significant impact on fish before the systems are fully functional; ii. Fish entrainment: • There is insufficient information to confirm that fish entrainment will not cause unacceptable negative effects on the designated fish species. 5. The DCO should not be made until sufficient information (including any necessary and appropriate mitigation measures) is provided by the applicant to resolve the potential for negative effects. Ornithology 6. In relation to the Severn Estuary SPA, Ramsar site and the Bridgwater Bay SSSI, potential negative effects are associated with: i. Disturbance of moulting shelduck by vessel movements to and from Combwich Wharf alone and in combination with vessel movements to and from the Temporary Jetty at Hinkley Point. The potential for the significant disturbance of moulting shelduck cannot be ruled out, unless the shelduck monitoring and mitigation strategy (developed in consultation with EDF in connection with the inquiry into the Temporary Jetty Harbour Empowerment Order) is legally required of EDF and implemented in full; ii. Disturbance of waterfowl by vessel movements to and from Combwich Wharf. The potential for disturbance to birds using the inter-tidal habitat depends upon the precise route and timings of vessel movements. To avoid, or sufficiently mitigate against such an effect, maximum numbers of vessel movements should be a requirement of the DCO; iii. Noise during the construction of Combwich Wharf. The lack of construction noise mapping means that it is not possible to determine whether noise levels are likely to disturb birds. Unless further information can be provided which can satisfy these concerns, a requirement is needed in the DCO in relation to maximum noise levels or the timing of construction works to ensure that an unacceptable level of bird disturbance does not occur; iv. Additional construction disturbance issues affecting functional terrestrial habitat. A planning condition has already been imposed by Somerset District Council relating to vegetation clearance, but this should also be applied to other construction activities to ensure that an unacceptable level of disturbance does not occur. Landscape 7. The proposal will result in a significant and long-lasting change to both the character of the landscape and views to the site. The proposed Landscape Restoration Plan and Landscape Strategy are welcome and will mitigate impacts on local or near visual and landscape character impacts. In addition, the proposals to ‘strengthen’ the landscape character will help mitigate some longer distance visual impacts. But the proposed landscape works cannot fully mitigate further reaching impacts on views, including those from the Quantock Hills AoNB, and surrounding landscape character and there will be a significant residual landscape impact. 8. DCO requirements are needed to guarantee delivery of the proposed Landscape Strategy and Landscape Restoration Plan without which residual landscape impacts will be even worse."

Robert Nicholls
"I think the villages near the construction site will have problems for decades with lorries. The Government has not fully completed energy review which affects nuclear power. I obeject to nuclear power being used instead of energy conservation and renewable sources of energy. EDF and the local council(s) have not got a full evacuation strategy."

Doreen Valentine-Slack
"When the previous application was made to build Hinkley Point C it was accepted by the Company that they would build a road linking the M5 J23 to the Cannington By-pass. Since then the traffic intensity through Bridgwater and along the A39 has increased. If it was considered then, why is it now not considered necessary?"

James Upton
"I cannot agree with edfs application on the grounds of traffic problems The A39 is an overloaded holiday route and cannot sustain the traffic outlined by their application. EDF has continually ignored a call for a designated haulage road from the M5 junction 23 across the parrot to the new power station yet this would solve the problems should a road accident occur or even more deadly, a nuclear accident. It would also serve to remove any nuclear waste without passing through villages nearby. the EDF application does not cover these points."

Penelope Mireille Holmes
"I object to the construction of Hinkley C: 1. The negative affects of construction traffic, the increased load on local services and the detrimental impact on the local environment outweigh any temporary increase in employment. 2. At a time of global climate, social, political, economic and resource instability, I do not consider the emergency planning put forward adequate. I consider there to be a particular issue preparing for a natural or security incident in a future in which resource scarcity may make present day emergency responses imposible. I am unconvinced that a foreign private company will be able to be held accountable for a disaster in the longer term. Nuclear power requires certainties in the longer term. Short term gains in employment should not be allowed to out way longer term issues concerning the locality. Hinkley C would create a liability which would be borne by generations to come. In the light of the Japanese disaster I feel that is too high a cost to impose."

Kali Jon
"I do not agree with the building of the new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point, West Somerset. I am concerned that the planning does not have adequate safety provisions in place for both the local people and those further afield. I am concerned that the planning does not have adequate provisions for tidal waves (which have occurred in the past, 1607) or earthquakes and the detrimental effect this would have on the Plant. I am concerned that the architectural plans are too old and by the time the Plant had been built will be outdated and therefore more dangerous. I am concerned that this may bring terrorist activity into the local area and have a negative impact in general."

Penelope Newsome
"I just wish to register my total objection to this project. I am totally opposed to new build nuclear power statons and in particular to this plan. Nuclear power is an extremely irresponsible technology ; the dangers far outweigh any possible benefits. We know that cancer clusters particularly child cancers surround nuclear power stations . The risk of devastating and lethal accident from human error, terrorism, geology is enormous, especially as there is nowhere safe to store the hideous waste and in this case the project is in a populated area. The local population has been subject to highly misleading information from supporters of nuclear power and is largely unaware of the threat that the project poses to health and life."

John Salmon
"I write to support the application submitted to the IPC to develop an additional nuclear power facility at Hinkley Point."

Azharah J Burn
"In 1962 Wellesley Tudor Pole wrote in "Message for the Coming Time" "As a result of nuclear fission the all important link between the positive energy in the uranium atom, the proton has been divorced and separated from the negative energy, the electron, thereby destroying the very life poise of the atom itself. The effect of the severance of this link is very similar to what happens when the link between the mind and the brain of man is broken." "As result , the explosions which follow the breaking of this link are of such a serious character that they create radiations that are entirely unfriendly and dangerous to all forms of life and energy on the earth. These radiations strike directly at the procreative life processes and functions not only of humans and animals but all life and the soil itself, the mineral world and the great elemental life forces in the air the water and in the fire." It is simply not intelligent to proceed down the nuclear route, it's bound to end in tears if it's allowed to proceed. I sincerely hope it is prevented from doing so. there are many other solutions."

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
"The RSPB’s interest in this application relates to its potential impacts on the qualifying species and waterbird assemblage of the Severn Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the Somerset Levels & Moors SPA and Ramsar site. The RSPB would like to acknowledge the productive discussions it has had with the applicants and the sharing of draft documents, especially those relating to the submitted document ‘3.61 Hinkley Point C Project Report to Inform Habitats Regulations Assessment’ (‘the HRA report’). As a result, we are satisfied that there are unlikely to be any adverse impacts on SPA waterbirds arising from a thermal plume from HPC, subject to a final validation of the thermal plume model. In discussion with the applicants we have made it clear that we are not satisfied with the application of the IBM MORPH model. In particular, we believe that the waterbird data is seriously deficient and some of the model assumptions are flawed. We cannot accept any conclusions reached in the HRA report based on the model. We note and welcome that the HRA report does not rely on the outputs from the IBM model to justify its conclusions of no adverse impacts arising from a thermal plume on the biomass of the important intertidal mollusc Macoma. We have discussed with the applicants the need for a comprehensive site management plan. This should clearly set out the full range of agreed mitigation measures in relation to waterbird disturbance arising from all elements of the project, including the construction and operation of the temporary jetty, the sea wall extension and the Combwich Wharf refurbishment and laydown area. We have expressed concern to the applicants at the lack of baseline data on the extent and impacts on the SPAs of the existing thermal plume from the HPB site. The applicants have recognised the need for a comprehensive post-construction monitoring plan for the HPC scheme and we would fully concur with this. The applicants have recently provided us with a copy of a draft proposed marine monitoring report, and have invited further comment from us on it. We wish to be satisfied that it includes inter alia sufficient detail on the monitoring of the HPC thermal plume, benthic fauna and SPA waterbirds in Bridgwater Bay, and that the monitoring programme is carried out for a sufficient length of time. It is critical to us that the site management and post-construction monitoring plans are agreed as part of any condition to a DCO consent. We suggest that the site management plan and post-construction monitoring plan are brought together as a single Mitigation & Monitoring Agreement (MMA). We are confident that through further discussion an MMA can be agreed covering all of our concerns. However we may wish to submit written representations to the IPC should this prove not to be the case or further information is submitted by the applicant."

M Reeve
"I disagree with the use of nuclear power, which I consider dangerous and bad for the environment. Also the disruption to the area by a firm that might not be able to complete the project, due to its doubtful financial condition."

Homes and Communities Agency
"The Homes and Communities Agency supports Sedgemoor District Council's aspiration to secure long term housing and regeneration benefits from the proposed investment in temporary worker accommodation . This primarily relates to the proposals for the Innovia site in Bridgwater where the HCA aims to enable the developer and the local authority to work more closely together to secure a long term, sustainable legacy for this site. The HCA considers that there is the opportunity for a number of other areas of government policy, particularly housing supply and affordable housing supply, to be delivered alongside a successful project to deliver the new power station."

Allison Baldwin
"My first concern is one of safety: although I recognise that nuclear power generation is clean, efficient and generally safe, I am concerned about the impact on this area if there is an accident. What steps does EDF take to ensure that its power stations are safe? Secondly, is the economic question of property values. When we moved to this area, plans were underway to start de-commissioning the reactors at Hinkley. Does a new reactor render this location less attractive and therefore our houses less valuable?"

Otis French Sanders
"1. read the barnes report 2. If there is a major incident at Hinkley point with only a singe access route how would the emergency services reach the point with the roads congested with people leaving the area? 3. A bypass/access road (I suggest Dunball directly to the point) must be built before, or if, any work is commenced. 4. This is not a preffered choice, it is the logical conclusion for the prevention of a catastrophy waiting to happen (Murphy's law) 5. why has an impact assessment not been done? 6. Surely the granting of permission for initial land clearance by W.S.D.C, without due process re impact assessment, means that the secretary of state has failed to carry out his legal duty, and permission given is unlawful."

Andrew Smith
"the development of the wharf and holding area at combwich is going to have a negative effect on the value of our home along with noise and light pollution"

The Bristol GREENPEACE Group
"01.I write on behalf of the members of The Bristol GREENPEACE Group, as we are opposed in principle to nuclear power. BRISTOL is sandwiched between two sites of nuclear power stations- OLDBURY in the North & Hinkley in the South. We are likely to be affected if either have serious accidents and there is no warning mechanism in place , no effective action plan in place for the safety /evacuation of residents, nor any mass provision of iodine . 02.Electricite De France [EDF]is a seriously compromised operator: a) re its Oikuluto [Denmark] operation; b) the recent French court judgement jailing some of its operatives for spying on GREENPEACE; c) its financial dependence for political support on the French taxpayer, which given the forthcoming Presidential elections may cease, in addition to the toxic debt accumulating to French banks may also decrease the fincial support available from the French Government. d) the recent report of the French Nuclear Regulator requiring substantial investment in updating EDF's French nuclear power stations to meet current safety standards. e) ALL OF WHICH COULD RESULT IN THE UK TAXPAYER HAVING TO PAY WHEN THE CURRENT UK GOVERNMENT HAS CLEARLY STATED THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT MONEY FOR NEW NUCLEAR BUILD. 03.The case for new nuclear build has never received the full open interrogation required for creating the upheaval entailed in building a new nuclear power station at Hinkley.The consultation process has lacked the open, democratic method required for a project which will need a thorough rethinking of the TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE. 04. The various sources of risk from nuclear power stations to humans, animals and the environment from nuclear power have never been adequately dealt with."

Caroline Norris
"Th value of my property will decrease and the noise levels will increase from traffic"

Helen Woodley
"EMERGENCY PLANNING - Inadequate planning for protecting population in vicinity and beyond from a serious incident, whether due to human error, technical failure, malicious attack, natural events, or a combination thereof. - In an emergency, evacuation via a single, narrow road would be problematic. - No evacuation procedure in place for the workers in case of incident at Hinkley B whilst Hinkley C is under construction. - Weaknesses in off-site emergency communications plan, which could delay an immediate large-scale response by several hours. - No clear provision for level of manpower and emergency service resources that would need to be immediately available. FLOOD RISK - There is a 100-year flood risk in this area, and spent fuel would be stored on site for at least 160 years. - Inadequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforeseen tidal wave event. - Such events have occurred before locally, e.g. in 1607, and cannot be ruled out in future. PROBLEMS WITH EDF NUCLEAR BUILDS / EPR DESIGN - Four existing EPR projects are all experiencing design and construction problems, at Flamanville 3 (France), Olkiluoto 3 (Finland) and Taishan 1 & 2 (China). - To date, no reactor of EPR design has been completed anywhere in the world. Unresolved design issues remain, concerns having been expressed by nuclear regulators in UK, France and Finland. WASTE / SPENT FUEL - Inadequate planning for management of radioactive waste produced by the proposed facility. - High-level spent fuel storage on site (for at least 160 years): not had this previously at Hinkley; an unacceptable burden to place on present and future generations. - Spent fuel would be much hotter and more radioactive than with earlier reactor designs. How would it be cooled? - Storage area ponds not yet designed. - Hinkley thought to only have a 7-year spent fuel storage capacity. - Prolonged storage of such waste on-site, with no viable final disposal solution in the UK or anywhere in the world, exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other incidents. This is negligent towards future generations, who must continue to manage the waste. It furthermore assumes they will have the information and social and physical resources necessary to ensure safe containment for millennia to come. DEMOCRACY - Serious concerns regarding new nuclear build that were raised in the National Policy Statements consultation have been ignored, which seriously undermines the case for approving any new nuclear power station. - National Grid impact – pylons - EDF has reportedly been offering inducements to local schools and businesses, to curry favour with the local community. - In France last year, EDF employees and agents were found guilty of spying on environmental group Greenpeace. - There have been reports of collusion between the UK Government and EDF to downplay the seriousness of the Fukushima disaster. - The applicant has therefore not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy or transparent. EFFECTS ON LANDSCAPE, BIODIVERSITY AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENT - Radioactive contamination of the land - ref: Green Audit report http://stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf HEALTH CONSEQUENCES - The impact of chronic low-level radiation exposure on public health and local ecology is being ignored. - Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in the estuary, e.g. Bridgwater Bay mudflats. - Monitoring and reporting of radioactive discharges is inadequate (public is only given annual average figures). FUKUSHIMA DISASTER - Weightman report is premature and has been criticised. Fukushima crisis is ongoing: far too early to be able to make a comprehensive assessment of the implications of the disaster for new nuclear build in the UK."

Kick Nuclear
"EMERGENCY PLANNING - Inadequate planning for protecting population in vicinity and beyond from a serious incident, whether due to human error, technical failure, malicious attack, natural events, or a combination thereof. - In an emergency, evacuation via a single, narrow road would be problematic. - No evacuation procedure in place for the workers in case of incident at Hinkley B whilst Hinkley C is under construction. - Weaknesses in off-site emergency communications plan, which could delay an immediate large-scale response by several hours. - No clear provision for level of manpower and emergency service resources that would need to be immediately available. FLOOD RISK - There is a 100-year flood risk in this area, and spent fuel would be stored on site for at least 160 years. - Inadequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforeseen tidal wave event. - Such events have occurred before locally, e.g. in 1607, and cannot be ruled out in future. - In particular, depletion of ice mass in polar regions due to global warming may lead to increased seismic activity in future, plus sea levels are expected to rise. PROBLEMS WITH EDF NUCLEAR BUILDS / EPR DESIGN - Four existing EPR projects are all experiencing design and construction problems, at Flamanville 3 (France), Olkiluoto 3 (Finland) and Taishan 1 & 2 (China). - To date, no reactor of EPR design has been completed anywhere in the world. Unresolved design issues remain, concerns having been expressed by nuclear regulators in UK, France and Finland. WASTE / SPENT FUEL - Inadequate planning for management of radioactive waste produced by the proposed facility. - High-level spent fuel storage on site (for at least 160 years): not had this previously at Hinkley; an unacceptable burden to place on present and future generations. - Spent fuel would be much hotter and more radioactive than with earlier reactor designs. How would it be cooled? - Storage area ponds not yet designed. - Hinkley thought to only have a 7-year spent fuel storage capacity. - Prolonged storage of such waste on-site, with no viable final disposal solution in the UK or anywhere in the world, exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other incidents. This is negligent towards future generations, who must continue to manage the waste. It furthermore assumes they will have the information and social and physical resources necessary to ensure safe containment for millennia to come. DEMOCRACY - Serious concerns regarding new nuclear build that were raised in the National Policy Statements consultation have been ignored, which seriously undermines the case for approving any new nuclear power station. - National Grid impact – pylons - EDF has reportedly been offering inducements to local schools and businesses, to curry favour with the local community. - In France last year, EDF employees and agents were found guilty of spying on environmental group Greenpeace. - There have been reports of collusion between the UK Government and EDF to downplay the seriousness of the Fukushima disaster. - The applicant has therefore not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy or transparent. EFFECTS ON LANDSCAPE, BIODIVERSITY AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENT - Radioactive contamination of the land - ref: Green Audit report http://stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf - Hinkley Point includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is situated within the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve, overlooks the Severn Estuary RAMSAR site, and neighbours the Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - The Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) target is to have 95% of the SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. - Removal of woodlands and hedges would affect habitat for a variety of flora and fauna, including protected species. - Since the site and locality are of such ecological, scientific and aesthetic importance, they would be inappropriate for such a development, which would undermine their protected status as well as their recreational value. HEALTH CONSEQUENCES - The impact of chronic low-level radiation exposure on public health and local ecology is being ignored. - Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in the estuary, e.g. Bridgwater Bay mudflats. - Monitoring and reporting of radioactive discharges is inadequate (public is only given annual average figures). - Public health issues, e.g. Burnham-on-Sea, downwind of Hinkley – cancer clusters. JOBS - Inadequate assessment of the impacts of a large influx of workers. - Risk of local unemployment increasing as more people flock to the area seeking work than there are jobs available, as has reportedly happened at Flamanville in France. - EDF reportedly treats its workers shabbily. French trade unions report that the workers are treated like ‘slaves’. FUKUSHIMA DISASTER - Weightman report is premature and has been criticised. Fukushima crisis is ongoing: far too early to be able to make a comprehensive assessment of the implications of the disaster for new nuclear build in the UK. CONCERNS ABOUT FINANCE AND DECOMMISSIONING ARRANGEMENTS, RISK OF INSOLVENCY, INSURANCE LIABILITIES, ETC WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO RAISE OTHER ISSUES NOT INCLUDED ABOVE IN THE COURSE OF THE EXAMINATION. END"

David Trebble
"EDF cannot expect the A39 from Bridgwater to Cannington to be able to cope with the increase in traffic that their new site is going to bring. This road is known for accidents and this road and the B roads become gridlocked meaning no traffic can use the roads around Cannington and the emergency services will not be able to travel to any emergencies in the Cannington area or if there was to be an emergency at Hinkley Point. Cannington is a small village who's roads and pavements are small, large vehicles travelling through the village to get to the new site are going to make the village a dangerous and frightening place for pedestrians and also cause congestion. I feel that EDF need to take all of these points into consideration and build a northern bypass."

Raymond Norris
"The site is not required, the new road will destroy green belt . My enjoyment of my property will decrease due higher levels of traffic"

Patricia Walsh
"I object to the proposals to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point and wish to register as an interested party for the upcoming examination. There are a number of serious flaws with the development proposals which I believe should lead the IPC to recommend against granting a Development Consent Order. As a layman the proposals seem unsafe as sufficient account has yet been taken of the lessons of Fukushima. The applicants should show how they have taken account of Dr Weightman’s findings and emerging international best practice when developing their plans for emergency response, flood defences, off-site electricity supplies and other site and project specific elements which serve to protect the reactor – and therefore, the public – from extreme external events. Existing Infrastructure is inadequate for the transportation of massive loads to site through an already gridlocked traffic system. The 'tweaking of traffic lights at main junctions' is not a solution. A dedicated haul road/bypass directly from junction23 to the construction site must be considered. This has a bearing on all other transport plans and more especially the quotidian life including transport to school, local town deliveries, tourism, farming, the emergency services ability to attend full emergencies. I hope that the applicants will make knowledge of their proposals more easily presented and accessible to intelligent and local area experts. Patricia Walsh"

Chris Scotting
"1 the application for Hinkley point c does not take into account sufficiently the limited vehicular access to and from the site. Emergency access to and from the site, and in the village of cannington. It does not provide sufficient alternative routes for site traffic to prevent sever adverse effects on the health and well being of the people of cannington. 2- the application will have a sever detrimental effect on the village of Canningtons and the qulity of life for the residents. No assessment of the social impact of the proposal has been carried out. 3- the need for a new nuclear power station is questionable. And the neccesity of having a foreign owned private company supplying such a large capital investment in our national infrastructure, places the country in a hostage position in the future."

Tom Griffith-Jones
"1 This application by the French national electricity company proposes the use of the wrong technology in the wrong place for the wrong purposes, using environmentally-damaging construction techniques and involving grossly excessive use of small rural roads that are essential for the livelihoods of most of the residents of West Somerset and the enjoyment of their paying guests. 2 The lessons of Fukushima are still not yet even garnered, let alone assimilated into the design process of new reactors. Weightman's report recognises the issues relating to the flooding of coastal sites, and mentions the issues relating to the zirconium alloy coatings to the fuel rods. But nowhere does it appear to consider the idiocy of using such an alloy, which, at temperatures above 1000C, reacts exothermically with the water vapour inevitably surrounding it to release hydrogen. It was the explosion of this hydrogen that caused most of the external damage to reactors 1-4, facilitating the release of further radiation. 3 The mandatory Exclusion Zone for Fukushima, originally 20km, subsequently extended to 30km, when applied to Hinkley Point, would include Cardiff within it, and therefore the whole width of the Bristol Channel, preventing all access by sea to Bristol and Avonmouth. It would obviously include also the local towns of Taunton, Bridgwater, Burnham on Sea, Glastonbury, Cheddar and Weston-super-Mare, as well as parts of Exmoor.??The 80km Exclusion Zone recommended by the USA officials would extend to Swansea, Merthyr Tydfil, Abergavenny, Chepstow, well beyond Bristol, to Chippenham, almost to Salisbury, to Weymouth, beyond Exeter, to Okehampton and Bideford. INES Level 7 events do occur, as we have seen, and such an event at this location would have a catastrophic impact on South Wales and the whole West Country, as well as displacing possibly millions of people. At Fukushima the Exclusion Zone is still uninhabitable, with no prospect of being repopulated within the foreseeable future. Such a possibility is an entirely unacceptable prospect, as well as being quite unnecessary. 4 The EPR proposed for this site is an unproven design that has failed so far to submit to being constructed either to budget or to time. 5 The technology proposed for this power station is unsustainable, and therefore should not even be contemplated. Not only is the waste product of no use for anything beneficial to society, but it is highly toxic, remains so for thousands of years, and cannot be safely contained. To propose the use of such damaging technology merely to heat water to drive steam turbines for electricity generation is the height of irresponsible bravadary. The proposals make no proper provision for the safe storage and disposal of this highly toxic waste, and none exist. 6 Emergency procedures have not been published for dealing with a Level 7 event here, and appear not to exist. The incompetence of Government agencies in dealing with the minor inconvenience of Foot and Mouth disease shows that a Level 7 event would be totally beyond them."

Jennifer Barge
"Whilst I'm not opposed to Hinkley C I have great reservations about the impact construction traffic will have throughout all the Bridgwater area. I live close to the proposed M5, Junction 24 Park and Ride and Freight Management Facility. Once up and running this is going to generate a huge increase in traffic on the A38 Huntworth roundabou, the A38 into Bridgwater and A39 towards Cannington. Traffic is already heavy along the A38 and frequently comes to a standstill; the proposed movement of freight traffic along this route will only exacerbate this. I believe improvements to the Huntworth roundabout should have been implemented by the developers of the Stockmoor and Wilstock villages development, along with others. This has yet to happen. We're encouraged to use public transport yet there is no pavement to the bus-stop towards Bridgwater, only a very muddy verge. Accessing the bus stop towards Taunton entails crossing the busy A38 with no pedestrian crossing. I feel very strongly that any improvements EDF Energy/Somerset Council/Highways propose should be put in place BEFORE any development begins. If EDF had agreed/been instructed to build the northern Bridgwater by-pass most of the imminent traffic problems would not arise."

Ruth Lederman
"Insufficient funding available to complete the safe building and ongoing maintainance and secuity of the plant - e.g. the present situation of Areva. This leads to: Concern for the use of nuclear power as a form of energy. Disposal of spent fuel. Security of the building against terrorist attacks. Lack of appropriate transport/road networks/infrastructure in the area."

Anne Williams on behalf of Peter Williams
"> Main concerns relate to access to site using current road infrastructure"

Robert Jones
"My concerns about this development are entirely based on the impact the build and operation of this facility will have on my local neighbourhood. I am specifically concerned that inadequate measures will be taken to mitigate the impact of increased traffic. Many Dunball properties, including mine, are very close to the A38, and will be signficantly affected by an increase in heavy traffic on this road. My disabled daughter's downstairs room is a mere 20 feet from the road. Some sound mitigation, for example double glazing, is essential. I am also concerned that increased traffic will lead to residents (some old, some very young, some disabled) being trapped on a small island surrounded by uncrossable roads, and unable even to safely access local bus stops. The Puriton Community Link project substantially addresses these concerns, providing safe access from Dunball to Puriton, and furthering 'alternative transport' agenda, and should be implemented as a mitigation measure. The time to do this is NOW."

Daniel Viesnik
"I wish to register as an interested party. I share the serious concerns expressed by Kick Nuclear, Stop Hinkley, South-West Against Nuclear and Greenpeace, amongst others, which I believe merit full and proper consideration. Although I am not currently a local resident, radiation does not respect man-made geographical boundaries, and the economic and other fallout would affect everybody in the country. I feel a personal obligation as a concerned citizen to voice my concerns about the proposed project."

Michael Fackrell
"Despite many representations made by myself (and I know of many others by individuals) EDF have continually ignored pleas to include within the DCO that ALL highway improvements and specifically the Cannington By-pass should be undertaken BEFORE any work is commenced on site. I recently had a conversation with a representative from the Department for Energy and Climate Change and he expressed concern that EDF had not included for all highway works to be completed before site construction commenced. The main highway through the Village of Cannington is the only access to Hinkley Point and has within this main route, parts of the highway which are extremely narrow and some which have severe corners. In particular, the length of highway which is at the entrance to the local Primary School is very narrow and having very narrow pavements. Taking into account current traffic (including that of day-to-day Hinkley Point Traffic), there is a lot of congestion, creating queues and anxiety for the local people using the narrow pavements. It would not be possible for the village highway and, for that matter, the village itself to accept additional traffic and certainly not to the levels indicated within EDF's transport model. I do agree with EDF's reasoning not to have a direct highway from the M5, jumction 23 to Hinkley Point because traffic from other locallties going to the site would still use routes through Bridgwater and the main route through Cannington and therefore there would be little improvement for Bridgwater and certainly not for Cannington. I therefore agree that having a Cannington By-pass is the best option. However, EDF has not considered the many many views made by local people, at consultation meetings, that the route proposed for the by-pass has been adequately considered and does not represent the best option. It is widely agreed by Scientists that Climate Change is beginning to affect this planet and that within the near future, sea levels will increase at an alarming rate and in addition, incidents such as the recent Sunamies; and in particular the one in Japan are occurring. In view of this, spent radioactive waste should not be stored at the site for any longer than is necessary. I am not sure if it is within the IPC's remit to consider but the Government is committed to increasing renewable energy technologies and it should also greatly increase its committment to reduce energy consumption. In view of this one would question whether new nuclear power generation is necessary and it might be appropriate for the IPC to consider and make comment."

Jean Oliver
"I object to the planning application to construct Hinkley C for the following reasons. Plans for this development do not make adequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforseen tidal wave event. There is inadequate and negligent planning for protecting the people of Somerset , Devon and South Wales from harm in the event of a worst-case scenario accident, whether caused by human error, malicious attack, technical failure or natural events. Specifically there are weaknesses in the off-site emergency communications plan which could delay an immediate large-scale response by up to 3 hours. There is also no clear provision for the level of manpower and emergency service resource that would need to be immediately available to prevent injury and death in the event of such an emergency. There is inadequate planning for the disposal of toxic waste produced by this facility. The storage of such waste on-site with no guarantee currently possible for its eventual disposal exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other unforseen accidents. Hinkley Point includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest and this development would have a damaging effect on wildlife habitat. Traffic congestion would adversely affect tourism, farming and quality of life. The impact of chronic low level radiation exposure on health and the local ecology is being ignored"

Philip Davies
"Grounds of Objection: Draft Development Consent Order Schedule 1 Authorised Project Part 1 Authorised Development Is deficient in that it contains no reference to either: A spent-fuel encapsulation unit, to encapsulate the spent fuel in its permanent disposal container (which is not the same as a transport container); or Sites for deep borehole disposal by the direct emplacement of spent fuel containers deep (3-5 kilometres) beneath the site. If this method of disposal was eventually chosen , the relevant potential sites should have been surveyed at depth before building takes place, as the latter may interfere with deep seismic surveying techniques. The upshot is that spent fuel will be produced on the site of Hinkley Point C without any certain or pre-planned means of it ever leaving the site either by deep borehole burial on-site, or by removal from the site in a form capable of deep burial elsewhere. I wish also to bring evidence that the GDA (Generic Design Assessment), on which the Nuclear Regulators rely, is not safe with regard to the matter of spent fuel management and spent fuel disposability, and in this matter the UK Safety Assessment Principles (the UK Safety Regulations) compare unfavorably with the IAEA Safety Standards (Fundamental Safety Principles) upon which the UK Safety Regulations are “benchmarked”, in the words of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR). The latter document would, in contrast, offer some protection to the local inhabitants of the land surrounding Hinkley in future times, specifically by setting a time limit by which the work (disposal) should be concluded. I have been in correspondence on this matter with the regulators, and have specifically asked them for references which they claim to exist but which they have not yet supplied, to the points in GDA where Safety Assessment Principle Fundamental Principle 8 (Protection of people, present and future, from the risks of radiation) is referred to in the Overall Generic Design Assessment. I requested them in time for inclusion in this submission, but unfortunately they have not complied. I intend, therefore, to show to the IPC that the provisions in IAEA Safety Standards which would have protected the lands round Hinkley Point from permanent contamination by undisposed spent fuel, are not available to the UK citizen in the UK Regulations. Specifically the words “Subsequent generations” should not have to undertake “significant protective actions” are missing from the UK Regulations though present in the IAEA. The Regulators should show the IPC that if these words were inserted in the relevant points in the GDA Assessment, that the project would comply. This is in the context that time periods as long as 100 years have been mentioned by Government as necessary durations for storage before the spent fuel is cool enough to be safely disposed. In my view the Regulators would be operating beyond reasonable powers of human foresight if they are asserting, as I believe they are, that there are no reasons connected with the disposability of spent fuel for consent to be refused. That is a statement beyond the competence of a Safety Regulator to make. (499 words approx)"

Mrs H Phillips
"Firstly apologies for any confusion or typos! – I am an active working member of a small community, and I’d rather not spend my evenings and weekends attending numerous consultation events, reading long technical documents, and swotting up on planning processes. However, in the hope this will be of use and dispel the myth locals don’t care, just because not everyone has time, I will mention some of my/our concerns. Lack of confidence in traffic data being used. We have repeated heard from the local authorities the evidence/ numbers being used are based on wholly inadequate information. We need experts to scrutinise it. As local people we know from bitter experience Bridgwater can be a no-go area, and businesses loose out to Taunton, which is more accessible. Why aren’t all interested parties required to share openly their data and workings? EDF should not be held accountable for problems that already exist, but what are they doing to mitigate the loss of trade and footfall into Bridgwater because their lorries/ coaches will certainly be the tipping point, if it’s not already too late. At both major M5 junctions significant other developments are planned/ going ahead. Junction 24 and the Huntworth roundabout leading off are already congested on a daily basis and this before all the existing residential and business developments are complete and impact of them fully known, and of course before EDF arrive. To be fair to EDF they have responded to the concerns and wishes of locals and changed their plans for the J24 Park and Ride/ Freight consolidation site, moving it from strategic green wedge to a vacant brown field site – however another developer (BGC) has now been granted outline planning permission for the green wedge site!! - on the basis it is for EDF associated developments. When granting permission District Councillors stated North Petherton was paying a high price for this BGC/ EDF development. The Huntworth roundabout is being improved at considerable expense, but what about the routes off it? Why weren’t BGC required to locate in central Bridgwater on brown field sites, and are the conditions being applied to the BGC site linked to this IPC application, to ensure the site really is used solely as intended and EDF associated businesses don’t go elsewhere eating up further green sites. What about the wellbeing of communities along the traffic route? I understand EDF will use non-peak times to feed their staff/ deliveries into the traffic – does this mean we will have traffic 24/7? Please can we have one day when no EDF vehicles are allowed on the roads. Why were EDF allowed to submit a planning application to the IPC without the Bridgwater Northern Bypass option? To require one now would be a material change, and delay things, but if an option then surely it should have been worked up properly, to the satisfaction of locals and Councils. A petition with 2,500 signatures was presented to Parliament in 2011. Considerable thinking and work went into gathering and presenting this. Those signing felt very concerned. I have not had opportunity to check the safety aspects, and trust others have scrutinised these. My two concerns are the impact of climate change on sea levels/ weather patterns, and the problems of evacuating/ accessing HP should this be necessary. I trust EDF have all the answers/plans and finance necessary to reassure, mitigate and compensate the community for the impact of this application, and not just the few individuals with strong bargaining power. I look forward to the consultation about how we spend the money EDF wish to invest in community projects!! We are not against EDF, but equally we don’t want to carry the entire burden for a national project, whilst EDF get the credit and profit"

Rosemarie Gale
"I am totally opposed to nuclear power stations environmental damage, disruption of roads and infrastructure will be devastatingly affecting the true nature of the west country's main income the tourists. EDF is a French company they will be the ones to make the profit, so again not a British company, as I guess the British taxpayer will be paying the decommissioning: costs illustrated below. The decommisioning of nucleur power stations are astronimical in France Euro 480 Million (20 times the forecasted amount). England Berkeley More than $2600/kWe (WNI estimates) So far € 117 Million This is not cheap fuel, this is not safe fuel. Germany is brave enough to not go down the route of nuclear after the disaster in Japan. Chancellor Merkel's Her defenders might argue that democracy is about listening to voters, and that the whole assessment of nuclear was changed by Fukushima. One of the things the commission she appointed looked at in a new way, for example, was the result of very unlikely events such as aircraft crashing (or being crashed into) nuclear reactors. Different sets of probabilities threw up different assessments of viability for nuclear power - and Mrs Merkel, a scientist, recognised the new reality. So might run her defence. Thirdly if the sea rises as predicted by 1m within 10 years. Building these power stations is absolute lunacy. Even if the new one is built high enough to withstand this rise in the seas which could be as much as 3m before this nuclear power station will be decommissioned it is in the proximity of the old Hinkley so if there is a problem there??? We were promised that there would be no new Hinkley as Bridgwater and Somerset had done there bit."

Trade Unions for Safe Nuclear Energy
"Dear Sir or Madam This project is essential to meet the Energy needs of our Nation, and the power that we require to ensure we have a competitive Industrial manufacturing Industry along with the other means of Generating Power in the UK The Hinkley project is avery important part of that Energy mix John Quigley TUSNE Co-ordinator"

David Eccles
"As a resident of Bridgwater and an employee of EDF Energy I have a detailed knowledge of the HPC development and wish to register my unequivocal support for the application. In particular I would draw the Commission's attention to the considerable business opportunities that the development will offer companies in the putative supply chain and associated support to the overall workforce of 20-25,000. The project represents a £10 Bn investment with £100 M pa to be spent locally on salaries and contracts and provides an unprecedented and much needed economic injection to the region. Furthermore, the considerable investment in education, training, skills and employment that EDF Energy will provide will act as a substantial legacy of the project. The various measures and sums of money that EDF Energy is offering in order to mitigate the impact of the development and of the workforce is unprecedented and is more than reasonable. The Housing Fund will comfortably offset any adverse impact on the lower end of the PRS and the Community Fund of £20M will provide generous recompense for any intangible benefits. Cumulatively the various transport proposals are entirely appropriate to mitigate the temporary impact of the additional construction traffic. In sum this project is vital to the country, the region and to Bridgwater and I urge the Commission to consent it without reservation."

Toby Phillips
"Nuclear is not safe"

Nathalie Louis-Andre
"I rented a house on High Street Cannington for 9 months in 2011 and took my daughter and baby son to school every school days using the very narrow path on Fore Street. This pedestrian path is so narrow that the pushchair was the width of the path and therefore I could not have my 6 years old daughter next to me. With lorries passing by, it worried me a lot. I realised that the construction traffic is not supposed to come through Fore Street but I even suggest that there should be a set tonnage for traffic not allowed through Cannington Village. I also crossed Rodway everyday without pedestrian crossings and coming back from school with children, there is no visibility at all to cross near the memorial. In order to keep a life in Cannington Village and enable villagers to use the Post Office and Spar with no worries and no risk, the bypass should be built first before any construction starts at the station. Calming measures should be placed as soon as possible to refrein people passing the centre of the village to go the station. Crossing between the butcher and school / Cannington newspaper shop is sometimes very difficult."

Robert Jeffery
"I disagree with the application because of the effects of construction traffic,on the landscape and local environment. Also there will be a lack of economic benefit and a effect on local services. There will be a lack of adequate emergency planning too."

Mr William Edwin Martin Roberts
"I do not believe EDFE’s Proposed Heads of Terms for the DCO Section 106 Agreement adequately address the need for suitable leisure facilities in Bridgwater. I also believe Bridgwater Town Council should be represented on any Board dealing with any community benefit fund set up by EDFE as the democratic body representing Bridgwater. I believe that EDFE backing provision and future operation and management of suitable leisure facilities such as a bowling rink, multiplex cinema, leisure pool and gym in Bridgwater Town Centre would form the most effective candidate for inclusion in the company’s proposed mitigation, legacy and community benefits package, should planning consent be granted for Hinkley Point C Nuclear Development. Such provision would not only directly benefit the huge influx of construction staff and their families, as well as future operational staff and their families, but also the local host community living, working and visiting the Bridgwater area, which will inevitably bear the brunt of EDFE’s development proposals both during construction and future operational phases. Indeed, EDFE effectively acknowledged as much in its letter to Sedgemoor District Council of 8 July 2009 which agreed that leisure facilities, such as a pool, would be a candidate scheme for investment. In backing such provision, EDFE would demonstrate that it accepts its duty to mitigate the huge impact of its development proposals on the local host community and is taking active steps to do so through provision of tangible mitigation, legacy and community benefit proposals, not only during construction, but also the operational phases of its proposed development. In backing such provision, EDFE would also be adopting proposals which command widespread support in the local host community. A petition against closure of the former town centre Splash pool was signed by 5,000 people. A further petition signed by 2,000 people was submitted to the local MP Ian Liddell-Grainger. Another petition of 1,000 signatures for a town centre pool was obtained within just 3 hours at Wembdon village fete on August Bank Holiday Monday 2010. In backing such provision, EDFE would help kick start the regeneration of Bridgwater town centre. Given its historic underperformance and the continued difficult financial climate, this would boost confidence as well as providing a catalyst to further investment in retail, office and leisure development within the town centre. This would be wholly in line with national planning policy and locally, the Bridgwater Vision and Sedgemoor’s Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework for Bridgwater Town Centre. Such action and outcome would also be of direct benefit to EDFE’s construction staff and their families, as well as EDFE’s future operational staff and their families, and all those living, working and visiting the Bridgwater area."

Federation of Small Businesses
"The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) supports the application in principal for the development of Hinkley C. The development will bring an econnomic boost to the area for all, affecting local businesses, local communities and individuals, it will bring the potential for new business to develop as well as act as a catylst for exisiting businesses to grow and prosper, there will envitably be a raising of skills and aspriations with new employment opportunities. This must be tempered with the understanding, addressing and working to resolve some of the negative impacts a project like this will have on the local communities, in terms of migration of local workers away from local businesses for gains from the Hinkley supply chain. The development will need to look at the disruption is is likely to cause to local businesses when phases are being implemented. The SME's are the backbone to of the local economy and need to be engaged with at all times and levels. Business engagement must be looked at holistically to ensure the best for both the development and the local community. There are representative groups who can easily canvas members and help guage opinion and highlight potential pressure points. Consult businesses and employers widely from the self employed individual up the chain to the larger organisations."

Douglas Shaw
"Criticisms of the Weightman report are many Greenpeace's legal challenge of the National Policy Statement is outstanding Hinkley Point is not the right site, as its one of the worst ecological impact sites regarding habitats, ecology etc. There is local experience of public health damage, data from Burnham on Sea downwind of Hinkley"

Eleanor Rosie Gillam
"I would like to object to the proposed plans for the following reasons. The esturies and mudflats of South and West Walse are at risk from accumulation of discharges of radioactive material. Both airborne and liquid emissions will contaminate soils and sediment. The health of the population and well-being of local ecology is at risk. Local Health issues, ie an increased risk of leukemia has been found around nuclear installations in UK & Europe. Monitoring and reporting of radioactive discharges is unacceptable Evidence from the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster has shown that pathways for radionuclides into the food-chain are poorly understood The storage of waste & spent fuel was a major contributor to the problems at Fukushima and release of radiation into the environment. At Hinkley the storage area ponds have not been designed yet. Hinkley only seems to have a seven year storage capacity, where will the waste go afer this period? There are also plans for a high level waste storage facility which there has not previously been at Hinkley. I would like to know how the cooling of spent waste will be done and if there is an emergency on site how evacuation will be effected on one road. It also seems that if B station has an accident while C is being built EDF doesn't have evacuation procedure for the workers. I would like to say that the evacuation plans are clearly inadequate in the light of Fukushima and that evacuation plans in the event of any catastrophe don't appear to be in the EDF application."

Benjamin Greenwood
"I have concerns about the effect this development will have on the small roads over quite a wide area between Hinckley, Bridgwater and Taunton. Some routes are already heavily over-used, leading to localised traffic jams. I am concerned that Brymore School, the country's only state-run farm school, will be seriously affected. Fundamentally, though, the plan to create highly radioactive waste with a half-life of thousands of years is a totally unacceptable legacy for future generations."

Julie Williams
"I disagree with all aspects of this application. The A39 is already overcrowded and struggling to cope with volume of traffic with regular tailbacks of at least 3 miles in the holiday season. This is a tourist area with many people earning a living through tourism who will be affected . Accidents on this road (three major ones in 2011) cause the local unclassified roads to be blocked, for three to four hours, with caravans and vehicles far too large for the lanes. Emergency vehicles cannot get through to surrounding villages. Emergency vehicles could not therefore access Hinkley Point either. Storm surges have been known to devastate the area (1607) and the "cliff" is not very high at all, nearby Lilstock had its fields flooded in the last 10 years. Safety when Hinkley floods? Environmental impact, ripped up hedges, loss of wildlife, loss of a valley. Impact in villages like Cannington, heavy lorries ,mediaeval buildings, school children, and very narrow pavements do not mix. "By-pass" cutting a village in half, stopping children walking to friends and cutting a school driveway in half. Increased labourers which will upset the social balance and safety of our home, with danger for children and young girls on their own, it will stop the life of the village. Storage of nuclear waste for 1,000's of years, will it permeate into the aquifer that brings pure spring water to Enmore and Stogursey for drinking? No need for nuclear power . Access in "Fukushima" situation would be impossible, a road from the M5 directly to The Point would be the only safe route, would also take construction traffic away from Cannington and Bridgwater."

Cicely Hitchings
"I am opposed to this application for the following reasons:- 1) This is an area of outstanding beauty which should not be further ruined by more developemnt of the site. 2) Traffic congestion in this area will affect farming and tourism for many years,with consequent damage to roads and property from construction vehicles. 3) In the event of an accident, pre or post construction,the one road access is not sufficient. What is the plan for access in the event of a nuclear accident ? 4) I believe that EDF does not have a good record , eg. Flamanville, Oikiuoto and Taishan power stations,as these projects are over time and over budget. It also appears that their contractors for the Hinkley project are not experienced in this specialist build. 5) I further believe that the French Unions have questioned the EDF treatment of workers and an influx of cheap labour would not help the unemployment surrounding the Hinkley area. 6) The proposed height of all the new pylons for the power cables is of concern in the landscape."

Camilla Saunders
"I wish to raise my objections to the proposed construction of Hinckley C nuclear power station on the following grounds. Construction period This will last a minimum of ten years, and be hugely disruptive to local people’s lives. There will be intense traffic movement related to the construction – every 40 seconds during a normal working day. This is in addition to normal local traffic. Local people have said EDF failed to do a proper consultation regarding traffic, and that potential damage to houses caused by traffic movement has not been taken into consideration. 93% of villagers living in Cannington do not want EDF traffic going through their village. It will cause pollution as well as unbearable noise. Villagers are worried that their homes will be compulsorily purchased, or if not, that their property will be greatly devalued. They are also extremely anxious that, should there be an accident, traffic congestion will seriously hamper any evacuation process, and that there is currently no evacuation plan for workers at Hinckley B. There are real concerns about this type of reactor, expressed by nuclear regulators in the UK, France and Finland. Currently, four existing EPR projects are all experiencing design and construction problems, at Flamanville 3 (France), Olkiluoto 3 (Finland) and Taishan 1 & 2 (China). No reactor of this design has yet been completed anywhere. Environmental concerns Hinkley Point includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is situated within the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve, overlooks the Severn Estuary RAMSAR site, and is next to the Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is completely inappropriate to site such a development in this area of ecological importance. It would have a huge impact on local flora and fauna, including protected species. This development completely ignores the Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) target to have 95% of the SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. Waste management. Hinckley is thought only to have a seven year storage facility for spent waste, yet high-level spent fuel will need to be stored for at least 160 years. As yet there are no storage cooling ponds designed. This is dangerous for current and future generations. It is unclear how spent fuel, much hotter and more radioactive than that from earlier reactor designs, will be cooled. Health Hinkley C will be dangerous for public health, both because of the production process, and the storage of highly radioactive waste. Low level radiation emitted by nuclear power stations has been proven to be dangerous for young children. . In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. Cancer rates in Burnham on Sea are up to five times higher than the national average. Accountability EDF has reportedly been offering inducements to local schools and businesses, to gain favour with the local community, and last year EDF employees in France were found guilty of spying on environmental group Greenpeace. The applicant is clearly neither trustworthy nor transparent."

Tim Bates
"it is totally unnecessary to build a freight area at combwich when there are acres available on the main site. there will be a huge loss of residential amenity from noise vibration lighting and closure of footpaths. the combwich site is on the flood plain and will need to be raised by a meter which will require thousands of tons of material to be moved. combwich wharf should not be required for freight movements when a jetty is being built on the main site that should be able to handle everything except AILs. why cannot that jetty also handle AILs? surely a sufficient structure with boom breakwaters could be constructed without harming local wildlife-none of which is unique. the effect of traffic on bridgwater will be horrendous. edfs own figures expect over 2000 additional vehicles. the only logical solution is a northern bypass. as long as the bridge is bigger than the ones already upstream there should be no adverse effect on flood drainage."

Jon Goodson
"I object to the application for proposed development of twin Nuclear Reactors at Hinkley Point for the following reasons: - The cumulative impact assessment includes the overhead Hinkley Point C Nuclear Reactor connection from Bridgewater to Seabank, but only considers localised impacts and viewpoints. However it is clear that the connecting overhead lines and the twin Nuclear Reactor station itself are inextricably inter-dependent and the impacts along the entire connector route also need to weigh in the IPC's decision. I therefore consider the ES to require supplementary information in this respect (to satisfy the EIA Directive and consider the full impacts of the "scheme" including its essential connection). There is sufficient clarity on National Grid's proposals to include a full EIA assessment on receptors for the entire route to Seabank along with the twin Nuclear Reactor proposals. - The major adverse noise impact on residential properties in the Cannington area as a result of failure to complete the bypass in advance of commencing major works on the twin Nuclear Reactor station. The promoter appears to offer no substantive justification for this decision. - The major adverse impacts on properties close to the proposed bypass once complete, including assumption of the requirement for a voluntary noise insulation scheme which does not address the reality of open-window impacts in summer and the peaking of traffic noise at unsociable hours which exacerbates disturbance. - Extent of severance between Cannington Village and Brymore School where no mitigation appears to be proposed by the promoter - Unacceptably high levels of vibration inside residential dwellings during construction of the Cannington bypass - Insufficient consideration of alternatives and justification for the chosen option with respect to the Cannington Bypass routing to avoid the above listed impacts - Increased flood risk, and reliance on active rather than passive avoidance measures, due to potential blockage of the Bum Brook emergency access bridge - Increased flood risk to existing properties, regardless of existing flood extent - Impact on designated heritage assets and the time required for any of the mitigation to establish - Likely overestimation of the input to the local economy as a result of discrepancies or incorrect interpretation of the 'worst case' in a benefical rather than adverse impact scenario. As a proposed significant beneft of the scheme, likely to weigh in the IPC's decisionmaking, this aspect should be examined in detail to ensure the proposed employment figures, off-peak accommodation benefits, visitor centre numbers and area over which beneficial economic impacts occur from the twin Nuclear Reactor station are accurate and defensible on the part of the promoter. - Insufficiently clear decommissioning timescales, especially in relation to when decommissioning would commence, providing an unclear timeframe for the nuclear legacy before interim storage is implemented. - Unacceptable use and reference to unnatural 'bunds' at all locations as a key form of mitigation, rather than natural landforms - Bridgewater A campus visual impact on removal of existing edge planting Overall I find that the balance of negative impacts, even without considering the underlying risk of nuclear incidents and long-term nuclear legacy not associated with other forms of generation, outweighs any positive impacts. Furthermore, as a matter of process, the IPC's own Chairman Sir Michael Pitt noted that due to its inconcise drafting, the Hinkley Point C twin Nuclear Reactor application was expected to take "3 times the usual number of staff" compared with a "normal application", however the promoter has afforded less than twice the statutory minimum of 28 days and included a Christmas holiday period. I therefore trust that the IPC will afford significant latitude to members of the public and statutory consultees through the examination process in terms of the extent to which they are able to raise issues that may or may not have addressed in the short time at this relevant representation stage. At this stage I have had to rely heavily on the non-technical ES summary alone to identify potential key issues."

Mary Roberts
"I have lived in Nether Stowey for 35years with my husband who was raised in the village and my 3 children. The village is a thriving community, we have a fire station, doctors/pharmacy,school 5yrs to 11 yrs age, butchers, post office/store/tea shop 2 other shops, 3 pubs, 2 hairdressers. village hall, church hall, children's centre, numerous bed and breakfast, Coleridge Cottage owned by National Trust, I could keep going on naming the plus points of my home. The church however is on the other side of the A39 as is the local Dairy and farm shop which employs many local people, to cross the road is very dangerous because the only straight length of the A39 between Bridgwater and Williton is on one of the two junctions to the village. I am not against the development as I can see that it will bring employment to the village, my concern is the junction. I can see that drivers who have become frustrated with traffic flow through Bridgwater to Cannington will be trying to get past the large lorries that frequent this route daily and our bit of the A39 will be the overtaking place as it is now but with added traffic will only be exacerbated. We have asked the highways for help but this has been halted due to lack of funds, would it be possible for EDF to work in conjunction with the highways and perhaps make the junction safe. Although the junction is a staggered crossroads the drivers do not slow down there are accidents on a regular basis and near misses most days. Because we as a village are not 'involved' we feel any requests for help to improve this junction are being ignored. Why should another person be killed or seriously injured when a comparatively small change could make this junction safe to use as a driver and as a pedestrian. I have just this Christmas laid flowers in memory of my friend who was killed at this very junction 19 years ago, please help with my plea so as I will not have to lay flowers for anyone else. Many thanks for allowing me to make my request."

John Addison
"I have no objection to the construction of the new power station at Hinkley Point. My principle objection is that the preliminary work for the construction of the station is to go ahead before construction of a by-pass for the village of Cannington. There will much increased traffic through the village causing noise, disruption and road safety concerns. The by-pass must be built first before any construction work should be commenced."

Mervyn Williams
"I am expressing concerns about the environmental impact of nuclear power, and also the negative affects a power station on local infrastructure. Nuclear power is not proven to be safe, as demonstrated in the Japanese disaster. Other countries have stopped nuclear programmes due to safety fears. The storage of toxic waste will affect significant amounts of land for over a hundred years, together with the associated risks of storage. The Quantock hills are an Area of Outstanding Beauty. The existing station is detrimental to this- the addition of the larger proposed station will be much worse. The proposed infrastructure issues will seriously damage local villages, in particular, Cannington. EDF have so far refused to take seriously the direct road from Junction 23 option, the option supported by over 90% of the village, going by the representations I have seen at various well-attended meetings. The direct access road option is the obvious solution to: 1: Cannington being severely damaged by an unnecessary internal bypass and 'park and rides'. The current proposals will devastate the village. There will be unacceptable levels of dust, noise and damage caused by the number of lorries and construction traffic. 2: Increased traffic in Cannington, including heavy vehicles, which will bring significant hazards and and a reasonable expectation of normal life for Cannington residents will be impossible. 3: Significant traffic problems in Bridgwater, which already experiences daily 'gridlock'. Note, whenever there is serious accident on the A39 (three times this year alone), there is widespread gridlock in Bridgwater and all the surrounding villages for hours, even emergency vehicles cannot navigate through easily. This is a serious safety concern for a nuclear power station!"

Sonia Maria Hulejczuk
"An installation as large as Hinkley C will inevitably have an impact on the wider area that it is situated in. This impact will be experienced on all levels, and whilst there is evidence of local investment by EDF in order to positively contribute to the impact, eg through relevant locally provided traning and education programmes, the impact of such a large installment will affect all aspects of the lives of those within a large radius. Essentially our wellbeing will be affected by the inherent hazards of the installation and the increase in traffic on under resourced highways. The health risks have long been debated, but undermining the beauty of the local environment is indesputable, whatever the views on the hazards of highly toxic materials in the vicinty and the well documented risks. Detailed attention to pollution resulting from both the building of the installation as well as the materials is essential in the evaluation of this permission. Creating large installtions to provide for our energy needs is, I believe, short sighted."

Richard Lee
"While accepting that nuclear power is a necessary part of the UK's power generation strategy for the next 20-30 years, I think it is unwise to concentrate so much generation in a single plant. The Japanese experience should have taught us that a larger number of smaller plants, widely distributed, reduces the risk of serious disruption to the power supply in the event of a natural or man-made disaster."

Friends of the Earth
"The overarching NPS on energy (“EN-1”) states: “The role of the planning system is to provide a framework which permits the construction of whatever Government – and players in the market responding to rules, incentives or signals from Government – have identified as the types of infrastructure we need in the places where it is acceptable in planning terms. It is important that, in doing this, the planning system ensures that development consent decisions take account of the views of affected communities and respect the principles of sustainable development. (Reference EN-1 para 2.2.4) We do not believe that to consent this application would be to respect the principles of sustainable development. Unsustainable aspects of the application include: Ø Direct adverse impacts on nationally and internationally designated sites, including the Severn Estuary SPA/SAC, and internationally important populations of migratory fish and birds, arising from construction and operation of the power station. (Reference inter alia Appraisal of Sustainability site report C.5.49 ) Ø Unacceptable levels of flood risk at the power station, part of which is in Flood Zone 3. The risk is substantially exacerbated by the effects of climate change which are likely to be severe but increasingly unpredictable during the latter part of the site’s nuclear activities (storage included). The Appraisal of Sustainability site report does not cover the full operational lifetime of the site. Ø The sequential test has not been correctly applied. The Nuclear NPS (EN-6) states that “all of the sites listed in this NPS are required to be listed to allow sufficient flexibility to meet the urgent need for new nuclear power stations whilst enabling the IPC to refuse consent should it consider it appropriate to do so” (EN-6 para 3.6.10). The clear conclusion of this is that not ALL the sites identified are required and therefore Hinkley Point, part of which is in zone 3, should be ruled out because alternatives exist which do not necessitate building in zone 3. The Appraisal of Sustainability is flawed in that it only considers ALL the identified sites or NONE of them as alternatives. Clearly there are intermediate options that are just as realistic and should also have been appraised. Ø Adverse impacts on coastal habitats and dynamics due to the presence of the power station. The Environment Agency has noted that protecting the site from flood risk now and in the future prevents the coastline and estuary from changing and adapting naturally. (Reference Appraisal of Sustainability Site Report). Ø Adverse visual impacts on landscape including the Quantock Hills AONB Ø Severe disruption to local communities due to construction and other traffic moving in a constrained area with few roads. This geography also increases the vulnerability of local residents in the event of a nuclear accident. The disaster at Fukushima has only served to emphasise the vulnerability of nuclear sites and the severe and widespread consequences of accidents. The lessons from this event have not been taken into account by the applicants, as their application was submitted only a matter of days after publication of the Weightman report. Ø Adverse socio-economic impacts caused by major construction activity and the presence of the power station, particularly loss of tourism potential in the surrounding area We note that these issues must be considered in detail with proper evidence as the nuclear NPS EN-6 is unable to reach conclusions on a number of these impacts as they are site and project specific, merely noting that mitigation “could” or “may” be feasible. We note also that the fact that a site is identified as "potentially" suitable within the nuclear NPS does not prevent the impacts being considered greater than the benefits (reference EN-6 para 2.2.5) We are also deeply concerned that the nature of the examination process prevents effective participation by local residents, with a vast amount of documentation and only very limited time to study it even given the best of circumstances."

Terry Peers
"I am opposed to the application for the following reasons: Absence of a dedicated northern route or a bypass for Bridgwater will bring the entire town to a standstill. Roadworks on just one road currently gridlock the entire town; to attempt to route the suggested volume of traffic through Bridgwater is unthinkable, the congestion, noise, dust and pollution would destroy our quality of life. This would have far-reaching economic effects, driving down house prices and keeping visitors away. Should an emergency occur at the new station, or indeed the existing B station, our road infrastructure would be wholly inadequate . It simply could not cope with an evacuation and emergency services would be hampered in attempts to reach the scene. Recent roadworks have led to severe delays in getting between Bridgwater and Cannington, highlighting the total inadequacy of the current road infrastructure. The construction of a dedicated northern route to the site, or an adequate Bridgwater and Cannington bypass, should be a necessary condition to granting this application. I do not believe EDF could construct Hinkley C within the suggested time frame. They have three EPR projects under construction, all suffering design and construction problems, resulting in significant time and cost overruns. I see no reason for Hinkley to be any different, as no nuclear power station has ever been built on time and in budget. Even if I were a supporter of nuclear generation, which I am not, I would not choose EDF to build me a power station. Their huge levels of debt and poor industrial relations, coupled with the Euro crisis and the very real possibility of a new French government turning its back on nuclear, make them an exceedingly poor candidate for the job. Their wholly inadequate "consultation" has alienated a large number of local people, even those who are not opposed to new nuclear in principle."

Misha Carder
"I have strong feelings about EDF being allowed to proceed on the following grounds: 1. The company has a poor on-going track record, with design and construction problems in time and cost in China, Finland and France. Why is this being ignored? 2. There does not appear to be sufficient contingency planning for the event of accidents, either large or small. Saying 'they won't happen' is not re-assuring. If an accident can happen, it will happen - at some point in the future. There are too many many world-wide well-documented accidents in this industry for the need to cite them here. We have a responsibility to both future generations, and the planet - to consider all eventualities at this stage. Because of the denial-attitude of EDF, the absolute fundamental need for the provision of sufficient evacuation routes is being ignored. Tens of thousands of people might have to escape in a hurry. We saw what happened in Japan in a small community-impacting on a large radius (which should have been defined much earlier.) 3. EDF is known as a bad employer. Bad employers ignore ' health and safety' in order to maximise profits. This industry is too dangerous to be considering such risks. Is this what we want in the South West? Anywhere in the UK? 4. It is an undisputed fact that seismic activity is increasing: Whether the 1607 Severn Esuary tsunami, with it's 30' waves was caused by seismic activity, or an extreme tidal surge - it is outrageous that the fact that it happened is being ignored. This is recorded history* - not some apocryphal story. In 1607 the population of the effected area on both sides of The Bristol Channel comprised small farming communities. If such a event happened now, it would effect tens of thousands of people - if not millions. Also, this body of water, which is the 2nd highest tide in the world - would be contaminated by a tsunami -damaged plant, and spread radio-active materials over a wide area; by wind-blown dry mud. What is the EDF model for potential flooding? 5. Fukushima is still in melt-down. Thanks to the internet, those who have an open mind are able to read what is actually going on in Japan. The further construction at Hinkley should stop - until we have got a full picture of the consequences of such an accident. 6. The South West has been designated as an area which will become the country's first Marine Energy Park. Resources should be put into these projects of the future - not investing in a technology that many countries are now scrapping as too dangerous. 7. Whilst I am not directly representing an organisation, I belong to a world-wide network of grandmothers , and feel honour-bound to protect the inheritance we are passing on to our children's children. When we are so near to a break-through in green energy technologies - why are we even thinking of rushing through a unsafe technology, which even Germany has rejected? An accident at Hinkley, could result in the masse evacuation of huge conurbations, and result in chaos and civil unrest. In the worse case scenario (which in this case is likely to result from flooding; vast tracts of Somerset and Gloucestershire, and the counties of Wales, would be contaminated, and farmland rendered unfit for food-producing for decades-if not longer. 8. Last, but not least aesthetics -with India, Brazil and China, set to lead world markets, we in the UK need to capitalise on what assets we have - one of which is beautiful countryside. There will be more people from these emerging economies looking for places for recreation. No company, and certainly not a foreign one, should have the right to blight our countryside with ugly pylons -because of their bottom-line. (This includes any energy sources coming on-line from the new Marine Energy Park.) Yes, burying them costs money; but so does lost tourism revenue, and the lost of precious beauty in this small overcrowded island. If 'Happiness' is to be factored into measuring the economy - then preserving the beauty of the countryside in the South West must be considered; when making monumental, irreversible decisions. * Haslett and Bryant, Archaeology of the Severn Estuary. 2002"

Neil Garrod
"Although it may look as though EDF (Electricite de France) have given consideration to the opinions of local people, if you were local you could, in no way, support the view that the people who live and work in the area have been consulted properly. EDF have done their best in smoke and mirrors to lead the communities in all directions to gain total fulfillment of their own agenda. If allowed to proceed with their objectives and plans, they will cause an unprecedented amount of disruption to this area for years and years - and in many cases, to much for people to actually bear. There is a very simple answer and one that would be greeted with such relief (for the alternative is unlivable with) which is for EDF to provide Bridgwater with a by-pass, by a properly dedicated road from the M5 (junction23) direct to Hinkley Point. No work should be allowed to take place until such a road or Northern by-pass is constructed. As someone who frequently travels to and from Bridgwater on a regular basis (average of four days per week) the chaos that will be caused with every conceivable form of traffic (emergency services, holiday traffic, increasing works traffic AND the building work traffic) and thus EDF get their way as stands at present, the whole area (NB area) will come to a standstill on a regular basis. Do not believe EDF and what they say. As someone who visits the area around Flamanville and stays with friends close to that area, they tell me of the absolute misery it has brought to their lives and the lives of those living further afield. they were lied to and there is every reason to suspect that they are lying to us, if they lied to their fellow countrymen!"

Jake Ayre
"I agree and back the following points: EMERGENCY PLANNING - Inadequate planning for protecting population in vicinity and beyond from a serious incident, whether due to human error, technical failure, malicious attack, natural events, or a combination thereof. - In an emergency, evacuation via a single, narrow road would be problematic. - No evacuation procedure in place for the workers in case of incident at Hinkley B whilst Hinkley C is under construction. - Weaknesses in off-site emergency communications plan, which could delay an immediate large-scale response by several hours. - No clear provision for level of manpower and emergency service resources that would need to be immediately available. FLOOD RISK - There is a 100-year flood risk in this area, and spent fuel would be stored on site for at least 160 years. - Inadequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforeseen tidal wave event. - Such events have occurred before locally, e.g. in 1607, and cannot be ruled out in future. - In particular, depletion of ice mass in polar regions due to global warming may lead to increased seismic activity in future, plus sea levels are expected to rise. PROBLEMS WITH EDF NUCLEAR BUILDS / EPR DESIGN - Four existing EPR projects are all experiencing design and construction problems, at Flamanville 3 (France), Olkiluoto 3 (Finland) and Taishan 1 & 2 (China). - To date, no reactor of EPR design has been completed anywhere in the world. Unresolved design issues remain, concerns having been expressed by nuclear regulators in UK, France and Finland. WASTE / SPENT FUEL - Inadequate planning for management of radioactive waste produced by the proposed facility. - High-level spent fuel storage on site (for at least 160 years): not had this previously at Hinkley; an unacceptable burden to place on present and future generations. - Spent fuel would be much hotter and more radioactive than with earlier reactor designs. How would it be cooled? - Storage area ponds not yet designed. - Hinkley thought to only have a 7-year spent fuel storage capacity. - Prolonged storage of such waste on-site, with no viable final disposal solution in the UK or anywhere in the world, exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other incidents. This is negligent towards future generations, who must continue to manage the waste. It furthermore assumes they will have the information and social and physical resources necessary to ensure safe containment for millennia to come. DEMOCRACY - Serious concerns regarding new nuclear build that were raised in the National Policy Statements consultation have been ignored, which seriously undermines the case for approving any new nuclear power station. - National Grid impact – pylons - EDF has reportedly been offering inducements to local schools and businesses, to curry favour with the local community. - In France last year, EDF employees and agents were found guilty of spying on environmental group Greenpeace. - There have been reports of collusion between the UK Government and EDF to downplay the seriousness of the Fukushima disaster. - The applicant has therefore not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy or transparent. EFFECTS ON LANDSCAPE, BIODIVERSITY AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENT - Radioactive contamination of the land - ref: Green Audit report http://stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf - Hinkley Point includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is situated within the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve, overlooks the Severn Estuary RAMSAR site, and neighbours the Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - The Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) target is to have 95% of the SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. - Removal of woodlands and hedges would affect habitat for a variety of flora and fauna, including protected species. - Since the site and locality are of such ecological, scientific and aesthetic importance, they would be inappropriate for such a development, which would undermine their protected status as well as their recreational value. HEALTH CONSEQUENCES - The impact of chronic low-level radiation exposure on public health and local ecology is being ignored. - Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in the estuary, e.g. Bridgwater Bay mudflats. - Monitoring and reporting of radioactive discharges is inadequate (public is only given annual average figures). - Public health issues, e.g. Burnham-on-Sea, downwind of Hinkley – cancer clusters. JOBS - Inadequate assessment of the impacts of a large influx of workers. - Risk of local unemployment increasing as more people flock to the area seeking work than there are jobs available, as has reportedly happened at Flamanville in France. - EDF reportedly treats its workers shabbily. French trade unions report that the workers are treated like ‘slaves’. FUKUSHIMA DISASTER - Weightman report is premature and has been criticised. Fukushima crisis is ongoing: far too early to be able to make a comprehensive assessment of the implications of the disaster for new nuclear build in the UK."

Gillian Lee
"I cannot agree with any aspect of the application as I believe it is profoundly misguided to build a multi unit plant anywhere. The Japanese experience has taught us that to do so is extremely dangerous, for when one unit malfunctions it has the potential to put others in jepardy. It is much safer to build smaller, single unit stations in a variety of locations, than one large multiunit station, and this is a stategy supported by the Nuclear physics community of scientists. Not only is this safer, it also avoids the risk of major disruption to power supplies should anything go wrong with one plant. I am reliably informed that the Japanese crisis is still a source of major concern because the scientific community do not have the technology to deal with it - it simply has not been deceloped yet. All they can hope to do is to contain the problem until the technology has been produced, and this could take up to 60 years.This being so it seems irresponsible to go ahead with plans that would repeat the mistakes made in Japan."

Lynne Fackrell
"I believe that the Cannington bypass should have been built before getting to this stage in the development of Hinkley C.However the bypass as the plans stand now for the western route will not enforce the Hinkley traffic to use it.Speed humps and traffic calming measures in the village of course may slow the traffic, but may not discourage the quantity of vehicles passing through. The new roundabout north of Cannington should only allow traffic from the bypass to proceed along the Combwich road and then onto Hinkley. The road at Rodway should be made a dead end before the new roundabout. Access shoukd be available to allow the college to link its sites.This will enforce the traffic to use the bypass route allowing our village to retain its character and ensure the safety of our inhabitants."

Katie Richards
"I agree wholeheartedly with the following- EMERGENCY PLANNING - Inadequate planning for protecting population in vicinity and beyond from a serious incident, whether due to human error, technical failure, malicious attack, natural events, or a combination thereof. - In an emergency, evacuation via a single, narrow road would be problematic. - No evacuation procedure in place for the workers in case of incident at Hinkley B whilst Hinkley C is under construction. - Weaknesses in off-site emergency communications plan, which could delay an immediate large-scale response by several hours. - No clear provision for level of manpower and emergency service resources that would need to be immediately available. FLOOD RISK - There is a 100-year flood risk in this area, and spent fuel would be stored on site for at least 160 years. - Inadequate provision for the danger of flooding and structural damage arising from an unforeseen tidal wave event. - Such events have occurred before locally, e.g. in 1607, and cannot be ruled out in future. - In particular, depletion of ice mass in polar regions due to global warming may lead to increased seismic activity in future, plus sea levels are expected to rise. PROBLEMS WITH EDF NUCLEAR BUILDS / EPR DESIGN - Four existing EPR projects are all experiencing design and construction problems, at Flamanville 3 (France), Olkiluoto 3 (Finland) and Taishan 1 & 2 (China). - To date, no reactor of EPR design has been completed anywhere in the world. Unresolved design issues remain, concerns having been expressed by nuclear regulators in UK, France and Finland. WASTE / SPENT FUEL - Inadequate planning for management of radioactive waste produced by the proposed facility. - High-level spent fuel storage on site (for at least 160 years): not had this previously at Hinkley; an unacceptable burden to place on present and future generations. - Spent fuel would be much hotter and more radioactive than with earlier reactor designs. How would it be cooled? - Storage area ponds not yet designed. - Hinkley thought to only have a 7-year spent fuel storage capacity. - Prolonged storage of such waste on-site, with no viable final disposal solution in the UK or anywhere in the world, exposes the population to the risk of contamination through flooding or other incidents. This is negligent towards future generations, who must continue to manage the waste. It furthermore assumes they will have the information and social and physical resources necessary to ensure safe containment for millennia to come. DEMOCRACY - Serious concerns regarding new nuclear build that were raised in the National Policy Statements consultation have been ignored, which seriously undermines the case for approving any new nuclear power station. - National Grid impact – pylons - EDF has reportedly been offering inducements to local schools and businesses, to curry favour with the local community. - In France last year, EDF employees and agents were found guilty of spying on environmental group Greenpeace. - There have been reports of collusion between the UK Government and EDF to downplay the seriousness of the Fukushima disaster. - The applicant has therefore not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy or transparent. EFFECTS ON LANDSCAPE, BIODIVERSITY AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENT - Radioactive contamination of the land - ref: Green Audit report http://stophinkley.org/Health/HinkContamJan2010.pdf - Hinkley Point includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is situated within the Bridgwater Bay National Nature Reserve, overlooks the Severn Estuary RAMSAR site, and neighbours the Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - The Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) target is to have 95% of the SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. - Removal of woodlands and hedges would affect habitat for a variety of flora and fauna, including protected species. - Since the site and locality are of such ecological, scientific and aesthetic importance, they would be inappropriate for such a development, which would undermine their protected status as well as their recreational value. HEALTH CONSEQUENCES - The impact of chronic low-level radiation exposure on public health and local ecology is being ignored. - Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions into the environment affect local and downwind populations and contaminate soils and sediment in the estuary, e.g. Bridgwater Bay mudflats. - Monitoring and reporting of radioactive discharges is inadequate (public is only given annual average figures). - Public health issues, e.g. Burnham-on-Sea, downwind of Hinkley – cancer clusters. JOBS - Inadequate assessment of the impacts of a large influx of workers. - Risk of local unemployment increasing as more people flock to the area seeking work than there are jobs available, as has reportedly happened at Flamanville in France. - EDF reportedly treats its workers shabbily. French trade unions report that the workers are treated like ‘slaves’. FUKUSHIMA DISASTER - Weightman report is premature and has been criticised. Fukushima crisis is ongoing: far too early to be able to make a comprehensive assessment of the implications of the disaster for new nuclear build in the UK."

Cyril Louis-Andre
"While I am in favor to the project of a new station at Hinkley Point I believe that it should be built with the appropriate infastructure in the close towns and villages. By this I mean that the construction phase should not prejudice sedgemore area significantly more than through normal demographic growth: traffic, accommodation, services. While this seems out of the scope of EDF Energy, local services, councils and authorities should be consulted and their development plan associated with EDF project. Hence as the surplus of people involved in the station construction increase the local tax collection and economy, appropriate projects appended to the station's one shall address the infrastructure needs (or remediate the lack of infrastructure - a bad example is the road traffic in Bridgwater, a good example is the Cannington bypass). Furthermore, while EDF proposal works well on paper, contingencies need to be detailed for worst case scenario which would undermine the credibility of its professionalism and its nuclear energy leader image."

Ann Kobayashi
"I am concerned about the following: The impact of chronic low level radiation exposure on health of local residents and on local ecology. The issue of safe disposal of spent fuel, the cooling of spent waste. The entire issue of safe long-term waste disposal. The fact that this is an international problem still awaiting a feasible solution - I am aware of the difficulties experienced in eg. Japan where not even the most impoverished local community has agreed to accept long-term waste disposal facilities despite the promise of generous remuneration. Flooding risk identified in the EDF application, appears optimistic given the difficulty of prediction in a period of apparent climate change. Evacuation plans in event of an accident. It would seem an unjustified risk to plan for only one access road given the need for a large number of emergency vehicles, worker traffic, heavy plant machinery to access the plant with maximum speed. I participated in a Disaster Relief camp in Fukushima prefecture in April/May 2011. I had discussions with local government officials and displaced residents. The most carefully designed evacuation plans can be disrupted by a series of accidents compounded by human error."

Juliet Lyon
"I should like to raise concerns about proposals to build what appears to be the largest nuclear power station in Europe in an area of outstanding natural beauty in Somerset, rich in wildlife and of benefit to all those who appreciate its tranquility and beauty. Many welcomed the move to decommission the original Hinckley Point and saw it as an opportunity to reduce risk and plan how, over time the area could be restored. Work on the new power station and associated infra-structure will change the character of surrounding villages and towns, disrupting transport links and despoiling villages with compulsory purchases, car parks and temporary accommodation. The power station itself, and the generation of nuclear power, carries risks as yet not fully understood and raises questions about the safe disposal of radio-active and other waste materials. Vast sums have been invested in this enterprise and with this degree of vested interest, it is difficult to remain confident that due weight will be given to concerns and questions raised by those in the surrounding area and beyond."

National Grid
"Please copy the link below into your browser to see the National Grid’s relevant representation http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/HINK-00218-National-Grid.pdf"

Somerset County Council
"This relevant representation reiterates Somerset County Council's (SCC) support for new nuclear development at Hinkley Point. However, the Council has also consistently made it clear that this support is conditional upon the development not resulting in unacceptable impacts on the residents, businesses and environment of the County, and positively contributing to local job creation and the County’s future economic wellbeing. SCC recognises that NNB GenCo, through its DCO application and related strategies and plans, has made significant progress on addressing a range of issues and impacts generated by the development. However, as demonstrated by this representation, there are still a number of substantive issues and impacts which have yet to be satisfactorily addressed and these will be the subject of detailed written representations and form part of a Local Impact Report (LIR) to be submitted at the appropriate time unless they are resolved. Where issues and impacts relevant to SCC remain to be resolved, the Council would wish to be represented at all relevant examination hearings. The Council’s detailed comments can be seen by copying the link below into your browser: http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/HINK-00219-Somerset-Count-Council.pdf"

Countryside Council for Wales
"Please copy the link below into your browser to see the Countryside Council for Wales' relevant representation http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/HINK-00216-CCW.pdf"

Graham Howard
"I disagree with the following Transport: Infrastructure should be in place first Workcamp at H.P.C: No justification has been given for such a large number on site 24 hour work seven days a week"

Marine Management Organisation
"Please copy the link below into your browser to see the Marine Management Organisation relevant representation http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/HINK-00217-MMO.pdf"

Mr Snelling
"I asking you I have two route to use to take wide load to Hinkley Point. 1/ Bristol Road. Wylds Road to Western Way to Quantock Road because the new swimming pool is going to be at Chilton Street (Chilton Trinity School ) no member of the public can use the swimming pool because the traffic lights can not take the traffic from the school and the swimming pool at the same time. So will the traffic not make it harder for the people of Bridgwater to use the roads. 2/ Taunton Road. Broadway North Street where I cross the road Wembdon Road where the pavement is not very wide are the people going to be stopped so the wide load can pass."

Sheila Stuckey
"I fully endorse the submission made by Bridgwater Town Council and the concise, but very relevant,observations made by the Bridgwater and District Civic Society. Hinkley Point C is likely to be the largest construction project in Europe for the next ten years. It therefore seems ludicrous that there is only ONE MEANS OF ROAD ACCESS to the site over already overcrowded roads, especially during the summer months. Common sense dictates that an alternative means of access/egress is essential. A route that not only bypasses both Bridgwater and Cannington but has a direct link with the M5 Motorway. This could be achieved with a road from the A38 at Dunball (motorway junction 23 )linked with the Cannington - Combwich road north of Cannington. Without this bypass the impact of the scheme on Bridgwater will be catastrophic. Even with it, the consequences of a workforce of 5000 working two twelve hour shifts warrants far more study. Public Safety is a subject that has been left tothe Police to resolve. A Major Incident at Hinkley Point would cause chaos on the proposed road system with emergency vehicles failing to get to the site. Minor road accidents,which are not uncommon, close our already overcrowded roads for hours."

Ann Blaxland
"I have no objection to NUCLEAR POWER as a resource. However, in respect of the proposed new NUCLEAR POWER STATION AT HINKLEY POINT, NEAR BRIDGWATER, SOMERSET, I consider the proposed method/area of the new "access roads" being proposed specifically in the application: HINK 00033, to enable this new POWER STATION - HINKLEY C to be built are "ill-thought out" and will cause immense traffic problems and positive danger on local roads. Other safer roads and also roads which will not impose on the standard and safety in this area have been abandoned because of the "cost". We must think ahead for future generations - their standard of life and general safety in this area - even if this will cost more than this current proposal."

Mr John Randall
"My wife & myself have already jointly submitted a comprehensive list of submissions and objections and these remain relevant to date:- 15/7/2010: Combwich Wharf – For reasons which should be self-evident, E G property blight, we do not want this facility recommissioned and used with all the proposed infrastructure, as there are viable alternatives 2) We want EDF to confine all of their operations to their own on-site land at Hinkley Point and this to include the construction of a wharf for the job 3) No preliminary work what so ever to be undertaken until such time as planning consent is granted 4) Several other countries have rejected the proposed EDF reactor design as unsafe and we concur. 5) There should be a properly conducted public inquiry 20/7/2010 6) If planning consent is granted for a new powerstation and infrastructure, then non-negotiable conditions should be attached to that consent to compel EDF to make a wholesale buy-out of those affected home owners that want to move at pre blight prices and this to include full compensation for all reasonable costs and expenses 22/9/2010 7) We strongly object to the anticipated noise pollution, airborne pollution, IE diesel fumes, dust etc and night time light pollution in a rural setting like Combwich. 8) Were EDF granted consent in that same setting, we consider that there would be an increased risk of terrorist attack and that the safety of local residents would be compromised to an unacceptable degree. 9) We object to the prospect of roads in this locality being permanently gridlocked and being prevented from having road access to and from our own home. This hindrance would seriously impede emergency vehicles 29/9/2010 10) We question the suitability of Hinkley Point - with its established geological fault line – as a site for a further nuclear power station, particularly given the historic details of the 1607 Tsunami and the predictions of a probable recurrence. I have notified the IPC on a number of occasions that I have been the subject of EDF’s dirty tricks machine and this remains the focus of my concerns. In September 2010 Bridgwater police contacted me about a menacing defamatory EDF letter and an illegal recording of a telephone call EDF had made to me the previous July (2010). These items were sent to Bridgwater police by EDF police. I see this as a sinister attempt by EDF to silence me (and my wife) and deter us from participating in the consultation and planning process – A democratic right! Currently there is much evidence to support my belief that my telephone is the subject of an unauthorised intercept. The intention by EDF, supported by their allies and the co-alition government to destroy our local environment and out quality of life is seen by them as inconsequential. This is unacceptable, particularly given that there are alternatives which are viable and which we have already outlined to the IPC. Accordingly, we want the commissioner to make urgent provision for the local communities and not least those residents who live close to Combwich wharf. I wrote to our M.P Ian Liddell-Grainger in November last, pointing out that this community need guarantees and practical help in the form of that being offered to the residents of the mainly conservative constituencies who will be directly affected by the proposed high speed rail link if it is built. Mr Liddell-Grainger has not replied! Given the extensive work already undertaken on the project and continuing apace, together with the millions of tax payers money spent on a bankrupt foreign companies money making venture. Does this not make the IPC irrelevant and it’s work meaningless - thus our own efforts. A waste of time and money? This is not democracy…"

Natural England
"Headline Representations Natural England: 1. is not satisfied on the basis of the information submitted that, for purposes of the Habitats Regulations, the project will not have a likely significant effect on then Severn Estuary SAC, SPA and Ramsar site, and, accordingly, advises that an appropriate assessment is necessary; 2. advises on the basis of the information submitted that is not satisfied, for the purposes of the 1981 Act, that the project is not likely to damage the Bridgwater Bay SSSI and the Blue Anchor to Lilstock Bay SSSI; 3. advises that in order to limit negative impacts on landscape, including views from the Quantock Hills AoNB, the principles and activities identified in the applicant’s “Landscape Strategy” must be required and all proposals for landscape protection and restoration are implemented; and 4. advises that the project, if approved, is subject to all necessary and appropriate requirements (or conditions), which ensure that unacceptable environmental impacts either do not occur or are sufficiently mitigated. Natural England makes the following and more specific representations in relation to each of the following topics: Coastal Geomorphology/Hydrodynamics 1. In relation to the estuary habitat feature of the Severn Estuary SAC and Ramsar site as well as the Bridgwater Bay SSSI, potential negative effects are associated with dredged material being disposed of outside of the estuary, which would undermine the estuary’s “sediment budget.” A requirement is therefore needed to ensure that all dredged material is disposed of and maintained within the estuary; 2. In relation to the possible loss of the salt marsh habitat feature of the Severn Estuary SAC, Ramsar site and the Bridgwater Bay SSSI, potential negative effects are associated with vessel movements to and from the Combwich Wharf facility. Should the DCO be made a requirement is therefore needed to ensure that vessel speeds and the frequency of vessel movements do not result in unacceptable effects, and that an appropriate monitoring scheme is put in place to verify this over the term of such vessel movements; and 3. In relation to the geological features of interest to the Blue Anchor to Lilstock Bay SSSI, potential negative effects associated with the additional rock armouring that could impact on the rate of natural erosion of those features. Marine Ecology 4. In relation to fish for which the Severn Estuary SAC and Ramsar site are designated, potential negative effects are associated with: i. Fish impingement: • There is insufficient evidence to confirm that the Acoustic Fish Deterrent (AFD) and Fish Recovery and Return (FRR) technologies will be as effective as the applicant suggests; • There is no evidence to show that current proposals for testing of AFD and FRR during early operation will not result in significant impact on fish before the systems are fully functional; ii. Fish entrainment: • There is insufficient information to confirm that fish entrainment will not cause unacceptable negative effects on the designated fish species. 5. The DCO should not be made until sufficient information (including any necessary and appropriate mitigation measures) is provided by the applicant to resolve the potential for negative effects. Ornithology 6. In relation to the Severn Estuary SPA, Ramsar site and the Bridgwater Bay SSSI, potential negative effects are associated with: i. Disturbance of moulting shelduck by vessel movements to and from Combwich Wharf alone and in combination with vessel movements to and from the Temporary Jetty at Hinkley Point. The potential for the significant disturbance of moulting shelduck cannot be ruled out, unless the shelduck monitoring and mitigation strategy (developed in consultation with EDF in connection with the inquiry into the Temporary Jetty Harbour Empowerment Order) is legally required of EDF and implemented in full; ii. Disturbance of waterfowl by vessel movements to and from Combwich Wharf. The potential for disturbance to birds using the inter-tidal habitat depends upon the precise route and timings of vessel movements. To avoid, or sufficiently mitigate against such an effect, maximum numbers of vessel movements should be a requirement of the DCO; iii. Noise during the construction of Combwich Wharf. The lack of construction noise mapping means that it is not possible to determine whether noise levels are likely to disturb birds. Unless further information can be provided which can satisfy these concerns, a requirement is needed in the DCO in relation to maximum noise levels or the timing of construction works to ensure that an unacceptable level of bird disturbance does not occur; iv. Additional construction disturbance issues affecting functional terrestrial habitat. A planning condition has already been imposed by Somerset District Council relating to vegetation clearance, but this should also be applied to other construction activities to ensure that an unacceptable level of disturbance does not occur. Landscape 7. The proposal will result in a significant and long-lasting change to both the character of the landscape and views to the site. The proposed Landscape Restoration Plan and Landscape Strategy are welcome and will mitigate impacts on local or near visual and landscape character impacts. In addition, the proposals to ‘strengthen’ the landscape character will help mitigate some longer distance visual impacts. But the proposed landscape works cannot fully mitigate further reaching impacts on views, including those from the Quantock Hills AoNB, and surrounding landscape character and there will be a significant residual landscape impact. 8. DCO requirements are needed to guarantee delivery of the proposed Landscape Strategy and Landscape Restoration Plan without which residual landscape impacts will be even worse."

Margaret Roberts
"I am a grandmother living in Cardiff some 18/20 miles from Hinkley. I am concerned that within the expected life of Hinkely Point C there is a possibility that my family will be faced with a serious incident there which will affect our communities and thousands of people in south Wales. Very few people I know are aware of the proposed development. When they are, they are appalled that there has been so little discussion or publicity about it here - especially after the Fukushima incident had so much press coverage. The full page advertisement by the IPC in the Western Mail brought the development to my attention. The fact that it was felt necessary to advertise here must mean that we have reasons to be involved in the issue, yet no public information events were held in south Wales. I would like to make some additional points: 1. It took me over 2 hours to get to Bridgewater to see the relevant papers - how long would it take a radiation particle to reach me? 2. Why has there been no constructive discussion of the issues here? What are EDF and the relevant authorities doing to provide facts for the public in south Wales, to involve our elected representatives and relevant agencies? 3. Emergency planning is obviously needed in this area to deal with the possibility of a dangerous incident at Hinkley Point C. When I worked as a Senior Social Worker for the former Mid Glamorgan County Council (1972 - 93) there were emergency drills when all services were called out and their response monitored and assessed in terms of co-ordination and performance. The Council had no provision for any planning for a threat from radiation. Under the 50 mile exclusion zone recommended by the US govemment, most of the south Wales Valleys as well as Cardiff, Newport and Swansea would be included - an area which would offer particular difficulties for planners with huge numbers of people who are elderly and disabled and the particular problems caused by the topography of the area. 4. What provision has been made to liaise fully with the relevant authorities on this side of the Bristol Channel- the National Assembly, Local Authorities, emergency services, health boards, voluntary associations etc.? 5. EDF is a private company which I assume is seeking to make a profit. Why should Council Tax payers in one of the most deprived areas of Great Britain be liable for the extra expense involved in planning and maintaining emergency response schemes? Should this burden not be borne by the developers? 6. The disposal of the nuclear waste created seems worryingly vague and it is probable that the tax-payer will have to subsidise it. Other developments, such as open-cast mining, have to include in their applications before permission is granted plans for coping with any waste created. After the Fukushima incident, can we be sure that plans to store the radioactive waste on site are appropriate? 7. Most important, from my perspective as a local historian, has enough emphasis been given to the potential for a tsunami/storm surge in the Bristol Channel? The "Great Flood" of 1607 drowned nearly 2,000 people and many animals on both sides of the channel at a time when the area was sparsely populated. Our parish church was destroyed. Experts still argue whether it was caused by a tsunami or a storm surge: either way, it happened and could happen again. What have the developers and those responsible for our safety learned from Fukushima? Are the lessons being applied?"

Mary Graham
"I object to the Hinkley Point C proposed nuclear development, near Bridgwater. Japan has recently suffered a nuclear disaster, their site must have been considered safe to build reactors on, but it was not. We know from records that there has been a tsunami, or very similar to a tsunami, in this area in 1607 (see page 195 in "Outrageous Waves" by Basil Cracknell). There are warnings of global weather change in the news, one cannot assume development of nuclear power is safe. And what happens to the waste product? This is still a beautiful area, but if the building goes ahead there will be new roads, increased traffic and noise which will spoil what we have. I pray that the development will not go ahead."

Allan Jeffery
"The EDF(NNB) application to build the Hinkley Point C power station is unsafe and has not properly taken into account the lessons still to be learned from the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster. Safety Issues The application has been put in to the IPC, before it could have taken fully into account Dr. Weightman's findings and the ongoing studies looking for best international practice especially on the following topics for public safety. Flooding defence ofthe site. Emergency response planning. Maintenance of off site electricity supplies. Maintenance ofcontinuous cooling water supplies. Transport infrastructure issues. EDF has not listened to the concerns about how the road infrastructure will not be able to cope with the huge increase in traffic congestion on these local rural roads with a construction project of this magnitude,(the largest building site in the UK!). EDF's transport plans are inadequate and unsafe, and will cause continuous traffic gridlock for long periods at the motorway junctions, through Bridgwater, along the A39, through Cannington and the neighbouring villages on this routeway. This traffic chaos will cause serious damage to Tourism, Farming and Businesses in the region along with a considerable deterioration in the quality oflife for Somerset residents for at least ten years. This will also cause serious problems for the emergency services trying to reach accidents, fires and even evacuate workers and the public in the case of a major fire or radioactive plume release at the nuclear industrial complex. EDF's plans to modify the local road system will cause more problems than they will solve . EDF has not listened to local councils and the local resident's demands for assessing robustly alternative routes and dedicated bypasses which would improve the quality of life for the populations of Bridgwater and the villages on route. Consultation Issues. EDF's consultation process with the public has been a shambles which has meant a lot of the public have been shut out of a proper discussion and debate on the project. The public has been bombarded with huge volumes of technical information with very little time to absorb the details and participate effectively in a balanced democratic way. Scientific Monitoring. EDF has already admitted its calculations ofasbestos levels contaminating the site are wrong, this does not instil the public with confidence about how EDF carries out its scientific monitoring. The Green Audit report questions EDF's ability to monitor and scientifically evaluate land contamination on the site of other contaminants, e.g. radioactive hazards that could have an important effect on the health and safety issues for people working at the site. EDF does not have a good record on health and safety with its workers in France. The power station will have long term damaging consequences for the ecology of the important ecological sites in the Severn Estuary with local, national and international significance which this project cannot adequately mitigate against. Local Employment Issues. Expectations of jobs for local people have been misleading and exaggerated, experience of building these reactors in Finland and France proves this point. Long term storage of Spent Fuel Issues. The problems of how to deal with the high level radioactive waste (spent fuel) produced during the operation o fthe unproven designs of reactor, non working anywhere in the world are not finalised. The storage of this waste on site for 160 years causes much local concern as to how it will be kept safe from terrorist attack, and kept constantly cooled over this immense length of time. At present there is no final geological national depository for this waste, and probably never be, meaning that Somerset will become a permanent high level radioactive waste store - the "Sellafield of the south west of England." Prematurity issues. EDF's plans are premature and there are many technical, legal and economic reasons why the power station may never be built. Planning approval should not be given while the GDA design assessment is not complete, several legal judicial review actions are still ongoing, and the costs of dealing with the long term waste storage and decommissioning have not been finalised. EDF have not confirmed they can raise the finances for such a costly project, and they have not properly assessed if it will be an economically viable project to build and run the power station. In the preliminary works application and at the Public Inquiry into building of the jetty, they admit they may never build the power station, and offer to reinstate the land."

Peter Berrington
"The reasons for my objection to the nuclear development are: I. In the 50's the criteria for a nuclear installation was that it must be remote from populace, accessible by road for heavy loads, and on the coast for copious water supply. The original station at Hinkley Point was 470MW (megawatt) output. Hinkley Point is no longer remote. Main roads (A38 and M5) are nearby. Clearly it is not the right location for this massive nuclear venture - 'The First European Pressurised Reactor ' power station rated 3260MW. An incident exclusion zone around Hinkley would have devastating impact on the whole of the south-west. The risk is unacceptable. 2. We have twelve reactors on our coastline out of use too dangerous to dismantle, another ten to join them in five to ten years, and thousands of tonnes of active nuclear waste yet to be disposed of. When will this end? Future generations will never forgive us. It is time to stop. 3. Following catastrophic failures at Chernobyl and Fukushima world experts have scrutinised nuclear reactor designs and found serious problems, problems that are proving difficult to fix, problems that have convinced countries, Germany, Switzerland, Italy to abandon further investment in nuclear power. In USA investment in nuclear power stations plummeted after the Three Mile Island disaster and Westinghouse have sold their reactor division to a Japanese company. France has decided its reactors must be modified at huge cost and the future for nuclear power is under review. It features in the French election campaign. We in UK rely on our industrial neighbours France and Germany for nuclear power station plant. The industry is one economic, environmental, black hole and should be allowed to die. UK Government needs to get real and recognise this plan is unsound. 4. SSE here in UK has withdrawn from the Government nuclear power station plan stating the investment is not viable. There are low tech, low risk and lower cost options that energy companies can scale to meet demand and SSE have taken that opportunity. 5. EDF will be hit by the problems affecting business in France right now. The demands of the nuclear problem across their stations is one huge technical and financial commitment that will need their government support. Hinkley Point C Station is not their main concern right now. It would be reasonable and responsible to allow EDF the opportunity to review their application and consider whether, with the benefit of recent experience, they need to make any change.The French state owned contractor Areva nominated to build this reactor, its 'First European Pressurised Reactor' , is bogged down technical and financial problems with its reactor contracts in France and Finland. - running five years late and ' a loss of $2.1 billion this year'. We would not buy into this! I guess EDF have no choice. 6. In my view UK reliance on nuclear power does not make sense We import the fuel, the technology, the plant, the spares, and this station will be run by its French owner. Every nuclear step from start to finish, from mining uranium ore to disposal of waste is strewn with obstacles, exceptional costs and risk. 7. At Fukushima sea water is continuously pumped over the wreckage to keep fuel temperature and radiation levels down. No one knows how long this must continue. It will be years, some say decades. The water drains to the sea and the pollution spreads. Imagine this in the Bristol Channel. 8. A 3260MW station down in the south-west may not be that good for infrastructure. The UK national grid was destabilised by excess wind power recently. A year or so back the US grid lost one large station and that sudden transfer had a domino effect on stations down line causing countrywide blackout. Knock out one pit prop and the roof falls in. Hinkley C would be a substantial station on the UK system. 9. Should a storm strike the Hinkley C overhead line grid connection it automatically disconnects. The station turbo-generators would shut down to save them from destruction. That huge MW heat in the reactor has to be dumped immediately or.......? Someone must know the answer and the public need to know it. And, 10. My conclusion is that nuclear power is lethal, and it has no place in our lives for the sake of our future. Nuclear power has created nothing but problems, leaves lasting damage, and has killed or maimed too many people. And we pour money into it. It is absurd to use nuclear energy to produce steam."

Rose Stuckey
"In my view nuclear fuel, uranium, is the most dangerous source of energy on earth and poses the greatest threat to all living things. Incidents and accidents at nuclear power plants are on record round the world--Chernobyl, Windscale, Three Mile Island and Japan. At Hinkley Point A&B it is on record that a worker saw a paint brush among a pile of rubbish waiting to be removed. He took it home to ue. He was dead within 3 weeks. The house had to be decontaminated. I spoke to the nurses who cared for him. If the brush was radioactive to that extent, how much more was there. It is reported that a man died after an isotope was put in his tea. How many deaths are needed before action is taken. I do not accept the number of households supplied by nuclear energy. There are alterntive means of generating electricity. No one has yet solved the problem of nuclear waste. It is highly irresponsible to continue to create the unsolved problem of nuclear waste disposal. Britain must not become a nuclear dump. The current storage facilities are a blight on the landscape and prevent access to beaches etc. The seas are becoming more and more polluted by nuclear waste. Nuclear fallout knows no boundaries and is an invisible danger. I know someone who says he left the industry because of his fears for his children having seen the dangers at first hand. STOP THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER NOW AND CLOSE DOWN ALL EXISTING PLANTS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE."

Pamela Sellers
"I wish to object to the planning application for the development of the Hinkley C generating project on several grounds. There is only one road onto the site, which will lead to considerable congestion and inconvience to other users apart from the construction traffic. There are no evacuation plans in case of an emergency such as flooding in spite of the recent catastrophe in Japan. Delays could lead to considerable escalation of costs and consequent increases in energy prices for consumers. There has been no consultation with the public to address the considerable concerns with regard to the disposal and security of the waste which will stay on the site. The number of jobs involved in the construction will be temporary and involve bringing in workers from outside the area very few local people will be involved in running Hinkley C as they must be highly skilled & trained technicians. Lastly the offer of money to colleges and local authorities is a blatant example of bribery & corruption! p.s The Severn Barrage is an alternative to this project and would produce an equivalent amount of green energy."

Ian Bateman
"I am of the opinion that nuclear power should be pursued with all reasonable haste, as the options (ie. So-called renewables) are far too varied in their ability to produce a consistent level of economically – justifiable power output. I have personal contact with the nuclear industry as a supplier & have every confidence in the engineering bodies concerned to produce a safe means of generation with due consideration of the negative arguments in respect of structures being able to withstand seismic shock on the scale this country may experience. The Fukushima incident is still fresh in the mind, but it was built almost on top of a fault line & a catastrophe was bond to occur sometime. The German decision, based on foregoing, to prematurely run down its nuclear plants, was a knee-jerk political response & probably misguided. Our nuclear industry enjoys a fine record in respect of safety, from the dawning-board onwards. Furthermore, the example of France’s ability to draw 80% of its power from 40+ inland Pwrs should also be a suitable example for the UK to examine. As may be judged from the foregoing, I am fully in favour of the proposed Hinkley C project & and look forward to its acceptance on a wider scale."

Rita Cook
"Cannington is a small village, narrow roads; + the road to Hinkley Point is also narrow. The A39 through Bridgwater to Cannington is only one lane each way + carries a vast amount of traffic as it is. In the event of an accident, quite common, the roads can be snarled up for 2 or 3 hours - there is no alternative route. EDF have seemingly swept aside any reference to the Northern by-pass from Dunball but without it they may run into big delays + also life for the inhabitants of Bridgwater, Cannington etc will be extremely unpleasant to say the least, for maybe 6 or 7 years."

Josephine Smoldon
"Objections to Hinkley C Firstly I think that the whole issue of nuclear energy should be reconsidered after the current situation in Fukushima, Japan has concluded. We need to use renewable energy to quickly address the C02 emissions and not wait years for a nuclear power station to be working, producing more problems than we have now. The new design of the power station has not been finalised EDF have one half built in France which has problems and has cost £ much more than was planned, mistakes have been made and it is running behind schedule. The Quantocks is AONB a protected area that is to be enjoyed for its beauty and to imagine a blot on the landscape so many times larger than the existing A and B is outrageous. The area is also a conservation area (eg SSSI) protecting species of plants and birds as well as the fossilised cliffs and marine life in the estuary. Nuclear waste has irreversible affects on life , we can only watch and wait for the damage it is doing that is going to emerge from continually adding to the manmade radiation levels in the estuary. Waste is a problem it can 't be moved, and storing radioactive waste in ponds of water for at least 160 years is unacceptable as we don't know what may happen in that time. This area is a flood risk area, the environment agency stated only a few miles from Hinkley there was an area with 1 in a 100 year risk of flooding so how can EDF keep the waste from flooding? The rise in sea levels and the disintegration of the coastline only adds to the problems. Only 400 years ago this area flooded, proposing to leave nuclear waste sat on a flood plane is madness, this location is not suitable. Currently French nuclear industry has demanded that their nuclear power stations need to spend huge amounts of money making them safe against earthquake and flood . I am extremely concerned about the fact that preliminary works was granted to devastate the area of the Quantocks even though the build has not got permission to go ahead, how can it be right that work at the site can begin without the long term regard of the landscape and life on it. Reading through the application there is more than one place where EDF are saying that things will be decided at a later date. How can it be right that a project as large as this is not defined from the start, if it is not clear how it will exactly be built and run it should not be allowed. There is talk of waste storage in the ground somewhere, but in 50 years of the industry it has never been done because it is too dangerous, ground water contamination, what containers to use and what language to label it, should it be labelled yes because it is hazardous and then it becomes a terrorist target! To build Hinkley C and then work out what to do with the waste is unacceptable. In the event of an accident whether it be man made or nature what is the evacuation procedure for the area? It doesn't appear that we have one, I wouldn 't know how I would be notified if I have to leave my home. If there is an accident at A or B while all the building work for c is happening what is the emergency procedure? We are told there is no risk with nuclear power it is safe, but I rang my house insurance company and I am not covered for nuclear incident, they would not compensate me if I have to abandon my home. So there must be a great risk or the insurance company would be happy to insure it! The Roads around Bridgwater are very congested and the increase in people and traffic that the largest building site in uk will be, does not bear thinking about in terms of trying to travel in the area. We already have seasonal gridlock if there is an incident on the motorway, the town, A38 and A39 are at a standstill, no traffic moves. If this was to happen at the same time as building and commuting of workers and materials or a separate local accident or god forbid a nuclear accident it would be a nightmare. Just recently the M5 accident happening at the same time as carnival brought the town to a standstill for many days. The health effects has long been discussed and reported , increase in childhood leukaemia and breast cancer along side other serious illnesses has been seen downwind of nuclear power stations around the world. It does not seem fair that EDF and all who support them can decide to put people of Burnham on Sea and beyond at such an increased risk. EDF are not a good company to be dealing with, their propaganda to susceptible local people through the media saying there will be jobs conjures up a picture of red riding hood and the big bad wolf. Local bribes to educational establishments and heavy handed approach to their staff takes away our right to a democratic process. The timing of the application over Christmas has meant the opposition to this build has had very little time to act. A few dedicated, sincere, people with genuine concerns have been given the task to try and read and act on such a huge application document written by a multinational company in such a short time it is so unfair."

Maureen Randall
"My husband and myslef have already jointly submitted a comprehensive list of submissions and objections and these remain relevant to date:- 1)15-7-2010.Combwich Wharf. For reasons which should be self-evident eg. property blight - we do not want this facility recommissioned and used, with all the proposed infrastructure, as there are viable alternatives. 2)We want EDF to confine all their operations to their own on-site land at Hinkley Point and this to include the construction of a wharf for the job. 3)No preliminary work whatsoever to be under taken until such time as planning permission is granted. 4)Other countries have rejected the proposal EDF reactor design as unsafe. And we concur. 5)There should be a properly conducted public inquiry. 6)20-7-2010.We submit that if planning consent is granted for a new power station and infrastructure, then non negotionable conditions should be attached to that consent to compel EDF to have a wholesale buyout of those affected homeowners who want to move at pre blight property values and this to include full compensation for all reasonable costs and expenses. 22-9-2010 We strongly object to the anticipated noise pollution, airborne pollution, i.e. deisel fumes and dust etc and night time light pollution in a rural setting like Combwich. 8)Were EDF granted consent in that same setting we consider that there would be an increased risk of terrorist attack and that the safety of local residents would be compromised to an unacceptible degree. 9)We object to roads in this locality being permanently gridlocked and being prevented from having unhindered road access to and from our home. This hinderance would seriously impede emergency vehicles 10)29-9-2010 We question the suitability of Hinkley Point with its established geological fault line - as a site for a further nuclear power plant particularly given the historic details (well documented) of the 1607 tsunami and the predictions of a recurrence."

Sedgemoor District Council
"Please copy the link below into your browser to see the Sedgemoor District Council’s relevant representation http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/HINK-00220-Sedgemoor-District-Council.pdf"

Margaret Brown
"I am passionately interested in the effect on the residents of our ancient settlement, particularly with regard to the transport arrangements. No traffic should be dissected from the A39 through the historic narrow streets of Stogulsey, Shuston and Buston. All vehicles should be directed along the A39 to link up with the C182. Two working shifts per 24 hours is the most you can expect the local population to tolerate, there are other workers here who need proper rest to be able to do their work properly and safely. Sunday working should be prohibited; all people need a rest day. I am totally opposed to bringing waste of radio-active materials on site, we cannot continue to poison our land and thus threaten the lives of future generations. Safer means must be found for this toxic waste."

Mr Bryan Harris
"Whist I am in total favour of Hinkley 3 I am concerned of the local impact of traffic especially during the 10 tear construction period. Small road improvements, park and ride and a short Cannington bypass will do little to ease conjestion in Bridgwater. The A38, A39 and NDR are already at saturation point during morning and evening periods and more new housing / schools are being built along the NDR plus off Bath Road and J24. The issue of a new river crossing and link road off J23 has I think been overlooked in favour of cheaper options. I think this link should be built as part of Hinkley 3 as a direct route during construction and for any heavy maintenance items in the future as well as workers from the northern end of Bridgwater."

John Hillier
"My concern is the massive scale of the project which must involve corresponding inescapable and permanant destruction of great areas of Somerset countryside - one of our greatest assets: disruption of existing way of life and extensive peripheral effects. I have lived in Somerset intermittely since 1948, and in   for 18 years, some 2/3 miles directly opposite Hinkley accross the Parret estuary section of Bridgwater Bay - not a pleasant view with the threat of worse to come. The project seems to be linked to anticipated population growth - 5m. homes are mentioned which calls for more investigation. In any event, if further power generation is justified Avonmouth is more suitable."

Patricia Rood
"I have lived in Cannington for 20 years. Prior to that, I lived in   on the A39 leading into Cannington, so I have extensive knowledge of the village. The HGVs travelling through the village will cause major disruption to normal every-day traffic, reduce parking facilities outside the Post Office, and one of our well used shops. Why on earth is this allowed prior to the building of the by-pass?! The park and ride at Cannington will cause noise and disruption to residents living in its proximity. The increased traffic to and from Bridgwater - our main shopping town - will only increase the present level of congestion. The influx of workers staying in Cannington can only add to the problems, and put more pressure on local services. The number of times that I have read that "EDF proposes to mitigate" these problems (noise, pollution, traffic etc) should tell you why these proposals are totally unacceptable to the people of Cannington. After Hinkley Point B was built the Barnes report was produced, and stated that "Cannington should never be disrupted again" if, as they foresaw, two more power stations were ever built. This report included detailed plans for a new bridge over the river, and a road direct to Hinckley, bypassing all the local villages, and, the town of Bridgwater. That is what we want - nothing else will do."

Philip Hemmings
"1) Traffic. The impact of the development on local roads will be intolerable 2) Hostel: The prospect of a local hostel imposed on a small community inevitably causes concern over noise, crime and light pollution 3) Evacuation: If there were a nuclear incident on 'B' station, I am concerned that evacuation of non-essential 'A', 'B' and 'C' workers coulde not be adequately implemented in a safe and timely manner."

Bridgwater Town Council
"BTC are supportive of nuclear new build at HPC but are determined that in any consent local issues are resolved in favour of local communities of which Bridgwater, as the 'host town' is the key settlement. BTC welcome the proposals identified within the EDF submission in relation to workforce , job opportunities short and long-term, training and development opportunities, local company sourcing and engagement, and community benefit and mitigation as far as these go. It is essential that benefits and legacy are not spread thinly but equitable sharing is secured for those most affected. Particular issues identified are: Safety and security -BTC see these as critical but recognize the role of international and national legislation, nuclear policy statements and the roles of the environment agency and office for nuclear regulation etc in licencing designs plant etc. Security issues onsite is supported as contained in the application. Turning to issues immediately affecting the town of Bridgwater we identify: Accommodation - plans for the Bridgwater A site (850) and C site (150) - we register concerns on the location of both A and C in one part of the town, with concerns about the impact on the community in that area, both in terms of integration and socio-economic effects where quite high levels of deprivation exist. We believe there is a missed opportunity to produce immediate community benefit by bringing back into beneficial use redundant sites or empty properties which presently detract from the overall impression of the town. If accommodation blocks A and C are to be accepted - firm agreements on management and conduct , particularly around leisure activities will be essential and security/policing paramount . Transportation strategy/highway impacts - EDF claim that their transport strategy will ensure that with some modifications at certain junctions, the existing road and transport network will suffice. It remains the BTC view that this is not the case - see more detail below - and that the building of a new road/bypass from the M5 motorway north of Bridgwater connecting to the C182 Hinkley road is required. It is maintained that there is a lack of evidential base for the submission by EDF on this point . In terms of the route improvements proposed, these are noted in respect of the various junctions within Bridgwater but local experience doubts that of themselves these will be sufficient to allow the highway network to operate and that apart from the specific junctions identified for improvement the knock-on effect to other parts of t he route is ignored. It is noted, for example, that improvements to the Quantock Road roundabout where the A39 and northern distributor road converge bringing traffic both from J23 and J24 and traffic flows from the Hinkley site itself, as well as existing users from many commercial operations in that area and in West Somerset has been omitted from the DCO application even though accepted as a requirement in the consultation process. Opportunity will be requested to comment more fully on all the transport strategy objectives - their implementation and operation based on experience of the preliminary works etc. BTC's major point is that not only will we see gridlock in Bridgwater but that the HPC development programme will be severely disrupted . Community benefits and mitigation - BTC will invite the IPC inconsidering the overall package to ensure that the funds are distributed in a manor and under a mechanism which is equitable and secures benefit during construction and long term for those communities most affected of wh ich Bridgwater is key."

M J Harbour
"I disagree with transport arrangements I do not feel roads in this area are suitable for traffic which would be using them I feel EDF should look again at direct route to Hinkley north of Bridgwater/Cannington"

Ms Caitlin Collins
"I oppose the application on the following grounds. Congestion on local roads will interfere with normal travel, also tourism, also emergency vehicle access, it will also negatively affect quality of life for local residents; these problems continuing for many years. Evacuation in case of emergency is at risk due to limited road access to the surrounding areas; these risks are exacerbated by extra construction traffic. Damage will occur to an ecologically significant area including SSSIs; it is also a beautiful area and people's enjoyment of local rights of way will be diminished. Waste management strategy is inadequate; the area is subject to flooding; there are plans for high level waste to be kept on site, with accompanying contamination risks. EDF is currently operating with approximately $34 billion euros of debt, which combined with the instability of the euro raises doubts about financial viability. They have time and cost over-runs at other sites in France, Finland, and China. There is a grave risk of their starting the project and then abandoning it, leaving massive damage behind them. There will be destabilising impacts on the local population due to large numbers of workers being brought in from elsewhere."

Councillor A.H. Trollope-Bellew
"I believe nuclear power generation is the correct way forword and is necessary for the economic purture of this country. I accept that Hinkley Point is a correct site for a nuclear power station. My concerns are soley during the construction phase. I do not think that the transport plans will work. The on-site hostel will cause undue disturbance to the local population. I have been the local county Councillor for Hinkley for over ten years and Chairman of the Quantock Hills AOND JAC for the same time I was the Cabinet Member at SCC responsible for transport for 15 months"

E.H Grant on behalf of B. Grant
"1) INFRASTRUCTURE. We are concerned that the existing road network is completely inadequate for projected construction traffic. The original suggestion was a new road from the M5 motorway to Hinkley Point. 2) EMERGENCY SERVICES. Referring to (1), in the event of it becoming necessary to evacuate the site, all traffic will be using one single lane road for incoming emergency vehicles and outgoing construction workers. Add to this staff from A & B stations, together with existing inhabitants from the surrounding area, and the picture becomes one of panic and chaos. 3) JOBS. Bridgwater residents have been led to believe that there will be quality jobs for life at Hinkley. How does this equate with EDF's plans to erect three campus sites for foreign workers?. Also we have read that unemployment levels have increased in Flamanville - despite new nuclear build with the promise of jobs. 4) REACTORS. The reactors proposed are untried and unproven. Are the people of Somerset to be 'Guinea Pigs' for this dangerous technology?. Our quality of life is under threat - as is our health and safety. 5) WASTE. The problem of disposing of this highly dangerous substance has not yet been solved. EDF's on site storage plans can only be a temporary measure and creates a health and safety hazard both now and for future generations. 6) FLAMMANVILLE. EDF's site at Flammanville is already over-run and over-budget. What guarantee is there that EDF will be able to keep to timescale and budget in this instance?. We would also question EDF's reliability in financial matters; also their ethical standards after the court case where directors were jailed for spying on Greenpeace. FINALLY. France has now been downgraded from AAA credit rating. Will British taxpayers be left to pick up the tab if EDF pull out of this project at some stage due to lack of finance from the French government."

William Meadows
"Read the Barnes report EDF’s £1.3 million funding for three Somerset authorities to compile a local impact report is clearly a conflict of interest. S.c.c. produced a report stating that Bridgwater would be congested by 2016 without the construction traffic. It is estimated there will be up to 750 HGV movements: 900 busses and light goods vehicles, associated with the development travelling through our small village of Canning ton per day. Justification requires that the health departments should be considered and balanced against the economic, social or other benefits which may occur. Planning permission would create highway problem traffic problems, safety problems, aggravation and severely reduce quality of life. The amount of construction traffic envisaged would create absolute chaos on the A38, the A39 and in the tiny village of Cannington as in the past on the A39 one accident has caused Gridlock. EDF should not be given the go ahead to construct Hinkley C, without first building a dedicated by pass from Dunball, across the river Parrett to Hinkley Point. This, if I can add is not the “preferred choice” of many local residents but the most logical. As construction of power stations by EDF (Finland) for example, can take much longer than first anticipated. The A39 Bridgwater to Cannington is already congested with domestic traffic, Hinkley traffic, holiday traffic, farming traffic, delivery traffic and no more please. I’m a disabled resident of Cannington and I find the traffic very intimidating at the moment, this will only increase with added traffic in the future. EDF should provide a dedicated northern bypass from Dunball to Hinkley Point"

Alan Elkan
"Permission ha not yet been granted for Hinley C station so permission for building the infrastructure will be premature - and works then carried out could be redundant, yet the locality will have been environmentally ravaged (the wildlife in hedgerows ripped up will not be replaced with the new hedgerows), and the community knocked for six with all the trucks and building works. The local authority is also concerted about: 1. The amount of construction traffic. 2. Damage to housing through vibration. 3. Insufficient roads and infrastructure with site worker not being able to exit due to only 1 access road (as found elsewhere in the UK) - this will be the longest construction site in the UK. 4. Congestion will affect farming + tourism for years. 5. Bridgewater cannot cope with 700 HGVs per day. 6. If station B has an accident while C is being built, EDF do not have an evacuation procedure for the evacuation. 7. It seems likely that EDF will not proceed with C’s construction unless the time and costs over-runs are overcome at Flamanville (France), Olkiluto (Finland) and Taishan (China)"

A Higgins
"I have associated with the Minehead and Exmoor tourist industry for many years owning and managing a top class hotel (74% AA) and a Holiday Riding Centre. Tourism is the largest employer in the area. Exmoor is also important for retirement. Both of these - activities being essential income which helps sustain living standards. The Development of Hinkley C may or may not bring economic development to the county as a whole. However it will be very damaging to the area for two main reasons. Firstly visual pollution. The enormous structure will visually pollute the area. It will be visable from the local hills - The Quantocks, North Hill, Bossington Hill, Porlock Hill, and the Hills of Exmoor - It will be visible beaches. Blue Anchor, Wunster Beach, Minehead Beach, Culvercliff. It will be visable from mine the starting point of the South West Coastal Path. Secondly Minehead and Exmoor serviced by two very inadequate roads - the A39 & A358 both roads are dangerous and with very poor accient records. At the moment when BUTLINS Minehead have a changeover day around (6,000 visitors in and out) when clashes with supermarket and the traffic from St Regis Paper Mill. massive delays occur. With the proposed development massive costs will be incurred by locals & holiday makers which will have a profound effect on tourism. The U.K. needs the development of its industry for both the above reasons. The Hinkley development would best be cited elsewhere."

MW Tribe
"1.Why can the traffic not be taken from Dunball directly to Hinkley Point thus avoiding the misery of constant congestion on the A.39 and through all the villages affected by the present plans? 2.The A.39 is a problem at present in the event of an emergency closure. The lanes used as diversions become totally impassable and the emergency services are unable to access villages quickly if needed. 3.Nether Stowey needs a carpark to accomodate the extra cars that will have to park in the village as more and more workers take up accomodation here. Oone could be made on land along the A.39 with a path ino the village could EDF fund this perhaps?"

Emrys Roberts
"1. My Home is some 18 miles from Hinkley Point. Virtually the whole of South Wales is within a 50 mile radius and hence within a potential danger zone should any major nuclear incident occur. However, it appears that no consultations have been held with the publ;ic bodies in Wales and no liaison with any Welsh-based emergency services. I would urge the IPC to delay consideration of this application until such consultations have taken place. 2. The EPR reactor proposed has no operating track record. How will the IPC satisfy itself that the plant will meet stringent operational safety requirements? 3. A similar type reactor being built in Finland is years behind schedule and its operational costs have doubled. How will the IPC satisfy itself that the timescales and financial estimates proposed are staisfactorily robust? 4. The former Hinkley plant operators required heavy financial support from the Government in 2003. As the current company is heavily in debt, how will the IPC satisfy itself that the company is able to carry out the project and that the tax-payers will not have to bail them out before its completion? 5. EDF does not appear to be aware that a tsunami or storm surge has already caused considerable destruction along the banks of the Severn Estuary. As a tsunami was the main cause of the Fukushima incident in Japan in 2011, will the IPC please ensure that a full risk assessment of the potential impact of a storm surge is carried out and made available for consultation before any decisions are made? 6. The company's discussion of environmental dangers centres mainly on issues connected with plant and road construction, traffic congestion, housing availability etc. rather than the more serious dangers of possible radio-active pollution. Will the IPC ensure the detailed and adequate proposals are in place to deal with such potential dangers and that the responsible monitoring body in Wales will be consulted? 7. The application provided little information about the proposed decommissioning programme at the end of the plant's useful life, estimated at some 60 years. It proposes that the arrangements for this programme should be agreed nearer the time in the hope that the better methods of decommissioning nuclear facilities will have been developed. This is completely unacceptable and is tantamount to wasking their hands of the problem in the hope that it will go away. The IPC should withhold consent until detailed and robust decommissioning methods become available. We must have adequate assurances now on this score and not pass the buck to future generations."

M Maund on behalf of D Derebag
"  is on the west side of Biddisham lane. The existing pylons are already very close to the property and go through the land I used to occupy. I do not want the new pylons to come any closer to   where my daughter and six grandchildren live I hope you understand what I am saying."

People Against Wylfa B
"I wish to oppose the EDF application to build new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point on the following grounds. Such a massive project would have huge construction traffic impacts on the area – Bridgwater has no by-pass and it is expected 700 HGV lorries per day would pass through the town. This heavy traffic would cause damage by vibration to houses, and the increased congestion would make it difficult for emergency services to reach their destinations as quickly as they would wish. Such congestion would hardly help tourism and agriculture in the area. Having the largest building project in Europe at Hinkley would have a devastating effect on the local environment and landscape. The removal of woodlands and hedges would affect a variety of protected species. Sites of special scientific interest would be overrun by the project. It is scandalous that there is no reference to the impact of chronic low level radiation exposure on health. Discharges of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions to the environment contaminate soils and sediment, for example Bridgwater Bay mudflats. Facts should be provided how to evacuate the area in the event of a serious accident, and how large the evacuation area should be. There are no evacuation guidelines for Hinkley C construction workers should a serious accident happen at Hinkley B. There is inadequate assessment of the large numbers of foreign workers on the area’s infrastructure and services such as health, education, and law and order. It is well documented that European cheap labour are badly treated at new nuclear projects in Normandy and Finland. Spent fuel radioactive waste is a thorny issue. It is intended to use high burn-up uranium in new reactors, the waste produced from such fuel would be twice as hot and radioactive as nuclear waste currently produced. Such new build nuclear waste would have to be stored on site for 160 years. How would this Hinkley C waste be cooled and stored? Has the IPC considered the ramifications of institutional and commercial failure during such a long period on the secure storage of these deadly poisonous wastes. The EDF application for Hinkley is a dangerous, vastly expensive and dirty distraction away from what needs to be done to ensure a safe and sane energy future. Embracing renewable energy in all its variety alongside a comprehensive programme of energy conservation is the sensible answer to our electricity needs and most definitely to the needs of future generations."

Mary Woodward
"I wish to make the following points; 1.I live in   & I worry about flood risk issues, & the lowering of the existing wharf. 2.Why build a goods wharf, when a similar one is to be built at the main site. The wharf is in the centre of our village & will make serious noise & light pollution during construction & use for residents nearby. 3.We must have restricted working hours. 4.I worry about the impact to the Combwich junctions, & also the difficulty of getting through Cannington to Bridgwater & back most days. When there is an accident the road is at a standstill. I work in a nursing home on shifts, how long is my journey going to take me? 5.I have lived in   since 1970, it is a lovelly village, I accept progress, but dont want it ruined."

T Norman
"I have a boat at Combwich Pill and Ime conserned about use of the river Parrot and Whare"

Allan Jeffrey on behalf of The Jeffery Household (Dick and Jean Jeffery)
"We believe that to overcome the transport difficulties in Bridgewater, Cannington and the local villages along the A39, is to build a northern by pass. It is the only effective solution to the transport problems. The problems of storing the nuclear waste on site well into the future concerns us very much. We believe that much more effort should be put into using the potential energy (tidal) from the Severn Estuary (eg tidal reef) It's better to have some occasional blackouts than nuclear fallout!"

Fleurette Brown
"1.Sustainability is about preserving the land, the environment in general in a healthy or improved condition for the benefit of future generations. Nuclear power stations are not sustainable. The land which they occupy will be contaminated indefinitley. The nuclear waste cannot be stored/disposed of safely and will be contaminating for 100s of years. Also N.P. stations will always be at risk of natural or man-made accidents which can be disastrous, more disastrous than any accident of a non-nuclear type. 2.There is ample evidence that rates of cancer, leukaemia and infant mortality are well above average in the vicinity of N.P. stations. 3.Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build, to decommission and deal with waste. Those billions of pounds could be invested in sustainable energy production which would be without the risks. 4.Nuclear power is advertised as being CO2 emissions free, but this is not the case. Nuclear energy is not carbon free. Even government agrees that nuclear power is no better than wind power as regards CO2 emissions (nuclear white paper, Jan. 2008) 5.Somerset is a rural county, which, if the Hinkley C plan goes ahead, will be bespoiled by huge pylons accross the countryside, a jetty scaring the coastline, 400 acres of countryside becoming a building site and noisy vehicles jamming the country roads. 6.I believe the precautionary principle should be adopted and nuclear power production discontinued, as germany has decided."