[10] Following this, EDF Energy put forward proposals for the Sizewell site in November 2012, where it planned to construct two EPR reactors.

The council said that a lack of support for the project was not the issue, and that it is that EDF "simply does not appropriately and sensitively address the impacts on our communities and the environment".

[39] EDF expects significant time and cost savings compared to the near-identical sister plant, Hinkley Point C.[citation needed] The projected construction cost of £20 billion (including "expected inflation and contingencies") for Sizewell C in the 2020 development consent submission[40] is 25% higher than the £16 billion (2012 prices) projected for Hinkley Point C during the planning process.

The government also warned that any stake in the project would be 'subject to approval on areas such as value for money and affordability' with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Alok Sharma, saying, "We are starting negotiations with EDF, it is not a green light on the construction".

[1] In September 2023, the UK government issued a pre-qualification questionnaire to prospective investors; successful applicants will be invited to participate in the bidding process.

[55][56] In August 2024, the UK government announced up to £5.5 billion of additional funding through the Sizewell C Development Expenditure (Devex) Subsidy Scheme "to enable continued support to the development of the proposed new nuclear power plant Sizewell C (SZC) to the point of a Final Investment Decision (FID)", "provided subject to relevant approvals, including the upcoming Spending Review".

"[59] In December 2024, Sizewell C's managing director Nigel Cann stated "We have five investors in the process and potentially more" and are aiming to take the final investment decision in 2025.

[65] The bid to block the works was brought to the High Court on behalf of TASC by a local resident and former Labour Suffolk county councillor, Joan Girling.[importance?]

Mr Justice Holgate rejected the attempt to block the works, and said that he "did not accept East Suffolk Council acted irrationally".

An EDF spokesperson responded to the rulings by saying that "The judge acknowledged the robust nature of the report provided by East Suffolk Council regarding the environmental impact of the work.

It was judged that this loss would be 'balanced' by the planting of over 2,500 juvenile woodland trees, including a mixture of broadleaf and coniferous species appropriate for the prevailing soil and coastal conditions.

TEAGS was formed in 2013 by representatives of the Suffolk parish of Theberton and Eastbridge, which neighbours the proposed Sizewell C construction site, in order to give a voice to the community.

[74] Concerns have been expressed regarding one of the shareholders in the consortium,[75][76] CGN, which is owned by the Chinese government and has been blacklisted by the United States Department of Commerce for attempting to acquire advanced U.S. nuclear technology and material for diversion to military use.

[4] Some environmental campaigners and Sizewell critics have questioned if it will be possible to meet the plant's need for potable water without adversely impacting the supplies available to surrounding areas.

[80] Figures released in early 2010 by the Sizewell A and B operators—Magnox Ltd and EDF, respectively—indicated that the two existing plants were consuming approximately 920 cubic metres (200,000 imp gal) of mains water each day, in addition to the 5,000,000 cubic metres (180,000,000 cu ft) of seawater that the operators are permitted to use for cooling systems that do not require treated water.

[80] Critics estimated that Sizewell C would require a further 1,600 cubic metres (350,000 imp gal) of potable water daily, and suggested that EDF were planning to use the mains supply because it would be cheaper than the alternative of establishing a desalination plant.

[82] On 8 August 2022, Together Against Sizewell C (TASC), supported by Friends of the Earth, announced its intention to contest the development consent order, based primarily on the failure to first secure a water supply.

… Businesses simply cannot match the offers being made by SZC and have already lost staff to higher paid opportunities – this was also experienced during the construction of Sizewell B.

Oxford Cotswold Archaeology had discovered a cloth and lead package containing 321 silver coins, in mint condition, and believed the bundle could have been the savings of a local figure, fearing regime changes following the coronation of Edward the Confessor in 1042.