The Sizewell C Project

Enquiry received via email

The Sizewell C Project

30 March 2020
Jackum Brown

Enquiry

> Re: EDF/Sizewell C consultations x 4 > > As we are led to believe that EDF will soon apply for their DCO, Covid 19 not withstanding, I want to submit some serious misgivings I have about the 4 public consultations that have taken place over the last few years. > > My basic problem is the hopeless lack of detail and evidence that has been offered around the complete transformation from the AONB and the deeply rural surrounding area of East Suffolk and the Heritage Coast to the highly industrialised wasteland that is being proposed. For 15 years or more everyone within a 40 mile radius will be adversely affected, businesses and the general public alike. RSPB Minsmere will be no more, we will lose an unknown acreage of SSSI and our unique landscape will have been irreparably altered for the worse. When asked questions about the impact on various aspects of the environment - use of fresh water (in short supply here), sewage works and related issues, danger of upsetting the water levels in the Minsmere Levels, of pollution and run off from building a permanent road right across the SSSI, danger related to sea level rise and more flooding on this famously fragile and eroding coast, EDF have too frequently said that environmental assessments have yet to be done. Obviously this makes it impossible to make truly well informed conclusions or comments. > > I object on environmental grounds. The British Government accepts we are in climate crisis, but everything about the construction of Sizewell C - actually Sizewell C and D - is extremely carbon heavy up front and much of this release of carbon will be occurring during the 10 year window of opportunity the scientific community have given us to retain life on Earth. The transport of all the necessary aggregates from one side of the country to the other, the pouring of a sea of concrete, the huge rise in traffic, air, light and noise pollution all create massive extra emissions. For example, the Yoxford junction onto the A12 will be an instant disaster. There is already often a queue to join it from the A1120, and with hundreds of extra vehicles it will become almost impossible to turn either right or left there, meaning traffic will be backed up along the High Street, with houses on either side set close to the road. There is also a primary school around which the children, staff, pedestrians and residents will have to breath in even higher levels of pollution than already exist, from backed up, idling traffic emitting toxic fumes. Families living on the east side of the A12 will have a difficult and dangerous time crossing it to reach and return from the school. > > I object on behalf of the the local economy. Far from bringing prosperity and jobs, we will lose our hard earned and lucrative tourist industry. As for boosting Leiston’s economy: as history has proven by the first two builds and by visiting the town today, that it will be a third case of boom and bust. It will take much longer, and be far more unpleasant to drive to East Suffolk and on arrival it will be difficult to find places to stay. Minsmere and the coast will no longer be attractive, suffering from 24 hour noise, light and air pollution. East Suffolk has very low unemployment levels and most of the SZC jobs will go to workers from around the world, many via Hinckley Point C. > > HPC has recently said it needs more workers than previously expected, and doubtless the same will be true at SZC. The infrastructure of the area simply cannot cope with thousands more people and no mitigation is possible for that. Jobs for locals will be largely in catering, general maintenance and similar work, which mean local hotels, restaurants, plumbers, electricians etc will inevitably lose staff to the higher wages of SZC. Local businesses will struggle and local people left without help when they need it. We have yet to be given details of exactly how or where all these previously unforeseen extra workers will be housed. > > The roadworks and roundabout building will take years, meanwhile the existing roads will have to carry hundreds of extra cars, vans, lorries, busses and some super-sized vehicles carrying special loads. Journey times could double or treble. I personally experienced a journey time of two hours to drive the seven miles around Bridgwater. East Suffolk is already one of the worst areas in the country for ambulance arrival times, and more people will suffer unnecessarily as a result - the same applies to the fire service. These extra workers will come to work and live locally but we already have a severe shortage of doctors and other medical assistance and nothing has been done to mitigate any of this We have been informed a helicopter will take injured SZC workers to hospital as it takes too long for ambulances to reach the site. What about the rest of us? We will just be left to die. During the current pandemic particularly we do not want and should not be asked to accommodate an influx of thousands to further endanger both our health and our health services, already almost at breaking point. Current thinking has the virus with us for up to two years. > > I object on financial grounds. The evidence clearly shows that new nuclear builds never come in on time or on budget, quite the reverse. In fact, that may be their only reliable quality. Every year that passes evidence piles up against nuclear, and every year renewable sources become much cheaper to build, as well as much quicker. Their carbon footprint is small in comparison to nuclear, and leaves no poisoned chalice behind. We already have a mass of radioactive waste stored at Sizewell, indefinitely it seems, but no-one asks us our opinions on that matter. Now it will be joined by much more, much ‘hotter’ waste which will be lethal for centuries - just when the world is facing huge sea level rises and more extreme weather events. Apart from the existing danger of low level radiation, this area will become even more dangerous to life. > > Government also gave consumers a choice over their power suppliers. I chose 100% renewable energy. The RAB system of payment for SZC, as suggested, is unacceptable on a personal level as well as in general. Why should the population pay to keep the bankrupt nuclear arm of EDF afloat financially? For a white elephant that we do not need and do not want? We have just left Europe, after all, and the French PM has stated he aims for France itself to become nuclear free. > > Finally I object on personal grounds. The east coast is crumbling and the build at SZC will not only adversely effect the AONB but the villages, land and residents to both north, south and inland as the sea will encroach. We are told SZC may become an island, that EDF will build their wall higher against rising sea levels (remember King Canute?) but in reality no detailed information has been given about this and many more issues that have been raised over and over again during the consultation process. Those of us who live here want to protect our precious local heritage not merely for ourselves but for future generations. We do not want to hasten the demise of some of the UK’s most highly protected and unique landscape for an unnecessary, fabulously expensive and potentially lethally dangerous white elephant that will remain just that for centuries to come. > > It has become only too clear over the past many years and four consultations that the proposed plans for SZC are ruinous both environmentally and financially. The lives of local people have already been adversely affected but ever more disruption will continue for 15 -20 years. All this before SZC generates any electricity at all. During the same period many more wind and solar farms will be built and other renewable technologies will come on stream, making the twin reactors of SZC entirely redundant. > > Jackum Brown

Advice given

Dear Mr Brown, Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation and commenting on the merits of the Application. As you have concerns about the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation you should contact the Applicant in the first instance to enable them to address the issues. If you have contacted the Applicant but you are not satisfied that the Applicant has, or will, take account of your comments you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The local authorities can consider your comments as part of their Adequacy of Consultation Representation submission to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) at the Application Stage of the process. The Planning Inspectorate will consider any adequacy of consultation representations received from the relevant local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept the application, as required under section 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is therefore important to ensure the local authorities are informed of your concerns. Further information about Community Consultation can be found here: attachment 1 As you are aware the proposed application by EDF Energy is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: attachment 2. Should the application be accepted the application and all the supporting documentation will be published on the project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website: attachment 3. The ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ will be made available here during the Pre-examination stage and all parties will have an opportunity to outline their views about the project. The appointed Examining Authority will then use these to carry out an initial assessment of principal issues. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’: attachment 4. I hope the above information is helpful.


attachment 1
attachment 1
attachment 3
attachment 3
attachment 4
attachment 4
attachment 2
attachment 2