Save the date – Tuesday, 9th December 2025, has been set for TASC’s permission hearing at the High Court, London
Posted: 21st October 2025
Save the date – Tuesday, 9th December 2025, has been set for TASC’s permission hearing at the High Court, London. The timing of the hearing will not be known until a day or two before 9th December, but all are welcome to attend to hear TASC’s barrister, David Wolfe KC, present our legal case to the judge. As soon as we know the time of the hearing, TASC will provide the details.
Coastal erosion and flood risk are at the heart of our case and the Guardian article of 15th October, ‘UK must prepare buildings for 2C rise in global temperature, government told’ highlights that our government needs to ensure, “Any new constructions intended to last decades should be prepared for 4C above preindustrial levels – a level at which the world will face global devastation.” In our opinion this clearly indicates that Sizewell C needs a major rethink/cancellation, not just because of the risks of coastal erosion and flooding but also drought – TASC and other NGOs were advised by DESNZ at a recent meeting that Sizewell C still haven’t secured a contract for the supply of the average 2.2 million litres per day of mains water essential for its slated 60 years of operation.
It comes as no surprise to those that know the vulnerabilities of the Suffolk coast and the Sizewell site to read in para 5.07 of the minutes of the Sizewell C Marine Technical Forum meeting on 2nd September 2025, “TD [Cefas for Sizewell C Ltd] explained that the northern end of the beach has shown a relative increase in erosion over the last few years, detected by the CPMMP drone flights, and that while not explicitly stated within the CPMMP SZC might wish to supplement the dune volume with additional sediment. TD explained that, based on work detailed in the CPMMP, the area from approximately just south of the TMBIF to the northern SZC site boundary would benefit from additional material.
SR [for Sizewell C Ltd] stated that the project was looking into this, but nothing was planned as yet. SR confirmed that if “recharge” was performed, it would be entirely above the MHWS mark (and therefore would have no Marine Licensing implications) but would require a Flood Risk Activity Permit (FRAP). SR also confirmed that, as per the final SCDF, any material used would be “site-won” if possible and of the same modal particle size.” So, Sizewell C are already admitting it may need to recharge the beach before the plant has even been built – in our opinion, this calls into question the viability and sustainability of the project, adding to the probability that the additional sea defences, the subject of our legal case, will be needed in the future.
The problem of long-term management of the spent nuclear fuel that will be generated by Sizewell C in particular, and new nuclear generally, is answered by the government and the nuclear industry by virtue of their aim for there to be a ‘geological disposal facility’ (GDF) to store the waste underground. The Sizewell C DCO was approved on the basis that its spent fuel would be transferred to a GDF by 2140, but Sizewell C later admitted that the earliest this could happen is actually 2160. However, in August 2025, the H M Treasury unit, Nista, published its annual assessment of UK infrastructure projects in which it advised that its January 2025 assessment of the GDF concluded that the project was ‘unachievable’ and ‘unaffordable’. Furthermore, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s Annual Report says, “Management has identified a risk that the construction and opening of the GDF may be delayed beyond 2050.” [page 180]. At the last Nuclear Waste Services(NWS) Exchange, NGOs were told NWS intends to review the GDF Business Case in the hope of achieving an Amber rating for the project in the next Nista Assessment. The GDF is not on the same growth trajectory following the recent spending review, so when the business case is reviewed, there is a strong possibility that the completion date will move again. As spent fuel from older power stations will be moved to a GDF first, the implication for Sizewell C is that its spent fuel may not be able to be moved into a GDF until the very late 2100s. This means that the Sizewell C site will need to be protected for a much longer period than 2160, which is currently proposed, thereby increasing the likelihood that the additional sea defences will be required. Alternatively, the spent fuel would have to be moved to a new location.
Just a short distance south of Sizewell, owners of 18 coastal properties in Thorpeness have been given notice that in the event the cliff erodes to within 5 metres of their homes then the house will need to be demolished. The problems at Thorpeness were reported by various media outlets, including the BBC on 20th August 2025, ‘My heart would break if I lost my home to the sea’which stated, “After another home in her street was demolished in 2022, Ms Flick feared she could lose her home too. She added that Storm Babet in 2023 had “really ravaged” the cliffs.”
The situation at Thorpeness is another reminder of the vulnerability of the Suffolk coast to erosion and flooding, including the Greater Sizewell Bay in which Sizewell C is located.
RAB and Nuclear Taskforce response.
In November, most of us will start paying the nuclear tax, RAB, to help fund the construction of Sizewell C. The media have picked up on some of the impacts, including the Guardian, ‘UK small businesses and charities say nuclear levy could add thousands to bills’, which said, “The extra charge could mean a significant cost hike for charities and small businesses with high energy use, meaning community services may be cut and economic growth curtailed, according to trade groups. For most charities, the levy, which takes effect in November, will mean an increase in costs of between £100 and £240 a year, but some could experience increases of up to £2,500”. However, energy-intensive industries such as steel-making will be exempt from RAB, demonstrating, yet again, this government’s propensity to favour certain large corporations over households, charities and small businesses.
This government has continued its assault on those trying to protect the environment and those who have concerns about the impacts of infrastructure projects such as Sizewell C. Following on from Keir Starmer’s February announcement, ‘Government rips up rules to fire up nuclear power’ the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce was set up with a remit to deregulate the nuclear industry. Rather belatedly, the Taskforce decided to consult with the NGO community about the Taskforce’s interim report to the government. TASC, individually as well as in conjunction with the NGO community, submitted responses which can be read here. In TASC’s initial response dated 8thSeptember, we wrote, “…we are of the opinion that the government’s request for the Taskforce’s review is starting on a false premise that nuclear is ‘clean energy’ [see Note 1] and ‘needed to power Britain’s future’ [see comment below re page 7]. Neither of these assertions stands up to public scrutiny; this review is being driven by the nuclear industry, big business and lobbyists for commercial and ideological reasons. TASC draws your attention to the Guardian article ‘Starmer ignored nuclear watchdog when he blamed regulations for delays: Office for Nuclear Regulation told government that claims about reactor delays in press release were not true’ which undermines government claims that project delays are largely caused by regulations and the regulators.”
In TASC’s second response dated 23rd September, we tackled the false claims made regarding the length of time Sizewell C was delayed due to legal challenges - “It is totally without foundation to say that the Sizewell C project has been held up for 827 days (approx. 2 years 3 months) due to judicial reviews. Indeed, DCO approval was given in July 2022, preparatory works started in 2023, and the DCO was triggered in January 2024. If the project was behind schedule, why did Sizewell C Ltd.’s joint managing directors advise Parliament in January 2025 that “Sizewell C is on time and on budget and has a stable cost base”
In the joint NGO submission, the group said, “The UK’s nuclear regulatory system has worked well for sixty years to ensure the safety of a high-hazard industrial sector. In our view, the system is not broken and does not need fixing, and frankly, it would be counterproductive to make substantial changes to its operation for the convenience of the nuclear industry.”
In HM Treasury’s press statement, ‘Chancellor takes on the blockers to get Britain building’ dated 15th October, Rachel Reeves chose to continue with divisive and insulting rhetoric when she announced new proposals to fast-track major infrastructure projects, totally disregarding the fact that delays and legal challenges are caused by developer incompetence and poor projects.
TASC still need help to reach our crowdfunding target to continue with this important legal action. We are extremely grateful to all who can contribute to and/or share our Crowd Justice page.
Many thanks from TASC for your continued support; it is very much appreciated.
Dates for your diary.
1. Cumulative Impact: Wednesday 5th November. Open Floor hearings at Snape Maltings for the Sealink interconnector planning examination are taking place in Snape, and TASC is joining other local NGOs in a peaceful protest from midday at Snape, highlighting the cumulative effects of all the energy projects on what is quickly turning into the Chaos Coast. Check out our Facebook, X and Blue Sky pages for more info nearer the date.
2. Sizewell C Community Forum Thursday 23rd October 2025. Doors open at 1700 for Exhibits and Information Stands, where hopefully you can ask questions before the meeting formally starts. Meeting time: 18.30-20:30 (The meeting will start promptly at 18.30). NO public participation as usual. AGENDA.
3. TASC’s Court DATE in London Tuesday, 9th December.