Memorandum submitted by Mrs S Millar
SUMMARY
I would like to draw the committee's attention
to the following points:
— Lack of consultation prior to nomination.
— Flawed SSA consultation.
INTRODUCTION
I am a resident of Silecroft, a small West Cumbrian
village about 1,000 metres from the new nuclear site at Kirksanton.
I have been running a successful bed and breakfast
business in the village for several years. Prior to that I worked
in environmental education for nearly 20 years.
FACTUAL INFORMATION
Community consultation
1. Community consultation prior to nomination
was non-existent for our village, despite the fact that we are
only about 1,000 metres from the site. Many of the houses
look out over the fields to the site; we are well within sight.
2. I will detail the sequence of events
that made me aware of the proposal of the site, since it essentially
mirrors that of all other Silecroft residents.
3. 25 Feb 2009: the local paper published
a story suggesting that a site "near Millom" might be
nominated. I don't take the paper, but a friend mentioned it to
me.
4. Following press pressure to know exactly
where this site was to be, RWE finally issued a press release
announcing the site around 4-5 March. The road to town was
closed that week, so I didn't see a newspaper and was unaware
until later.
5. My first knowledge of the actual position
of the site came from a chance meeting with a resident of Kirksanton
(during that first week of March) whilst walking my dogs on the
footpath, which currently runs through the proposed site at Layriggs.
She told me that RWE had sent a letter to 40 or so residents
of Kirksanton during that week, but no such letters had been sent
to anyone in Silecroft.
6. On 10 March public meetings were
apparently announced in the press. Again, I was unaware. On 11 March
a Kirksanton resident took it on himself to distribute the DECC
"Have your say" leaflets door to door in Silecroft.
I spoke to him and he mentioned a possible meeting at Kirksanton.
However, Kirksanton residents were concerned on the one hand that
their neighbours in Silecroft had no such meeting offered, and
on the other hand that their village hall could not accommodate
Silecroft residents as well as their own villagers. However, they
invited some representatives of Silecroft to attend.
7. I, and several others from Silecroft,
attended the packed meeting, but did not feel that we should take
up time expressing our views, since it was Kirksanton's meeting,
and they had plenty of questions.
8. Finally, on 7 April, after the nomination
date, I received a letter from RWE. Only those Silecroft residents
who attended the meeting and left their details received such
a letter. The majority of Silecroft residents, therefore, have
never received any communication from RWE either before or around
the nomination date, or during the consultation process. The only
official communication remembered by those I have spoken to is
the "Have your say" leaflet, delivered by the Kirksanton
resident as mentioned above. In fact, to date, no communication
from RWE has ever been received by the majority of this village.
9. I do not consider that it is satisfactory
to rely on people happening to see articles in the press as a
means of informing and engaging with local residents. Leaving
any effort at communication until less than a month before a totally
unexpected green field nomination is made is also totally unacceptable.
Flawed SSA consultation
10. You will be aware that in the SSA consultation,
Kirksanton attracted about a third of the total responses. Many
flaws, inaccuracies and untruths in the report by ARUP were pointed
out.
11. Some of these have been noted, and corrected
in the current draft NPS documents. However, a considerable number
of mistakes have persisted into the current HRA and AoS documents
for Kirksanton. These will be doubtless be pointed out again by
those of us who respond to the current consultation, but we can
no longer have any faith that the information we give will be
taken into account.
12. For the purpose of this written evidence,
I will give just one example. The original ARUP document submitted
for nomination said that "the site is subject to man-made
defences" (D2, page 11). Several people who responded
during the SSA consultation pointed out the fact that there are
no man-made defences at or near the site, yet the mistake has
not only been repeated, but also compounded, in the AoS for Kirksanton,
eg "strengthening of coastal defences" (page
13,14), "improvement of coastal defences" (page
16), and even "the site is defended by a coastal defence
scheme comprising of armoured protection and constructed in 1993"
(page 31).
13. Flooding, rising sea levels, coastal
erosion and disruption of the dune system in the adjacent Ramsar/SPA
are all major factors in assessing the suitability of this site,
so errors such as that above are of major concern. They make a
mockery of the consultation process to date, and give little cause
for confidence in the present consultation.
RECOMMENDATION FOR
ACTION
14. Serious, genuine attention to the process
of consultation before major mistakes are made.
January 2010
| 
